Re: Complaint by (JP/11/2019:) Dr Joanna Paschedag

Date of complaint to Panel: 06/08/19

Article complained of: Headline: “Politicised trans groups put children at
risk, says expert” (online)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/27/trans-lobby-pressure-push
ing-young-people-to-transition
Date of publication: 27 July 2019

Decision

Introduction
1. The complainant in this matter is Johanna Paschedag. In this Decision, the
Review Panel will be referred to as “the Panel”, Dr Paschedag as “the
Complainant” and the Readers Editor” as “RE”. The Panel’s remit is to
consider appeals where the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome at
RE level. The Panel will only consider whether or not the complaint gives rise
to a breach of one or more of the provisions of the Press Complaints
Commission’s Code of Conduct (“the Code”).

The Articles

1. The Complainant complains about the online version of an article with the
headline ​“Politicised trans groups put children at risk, says expert”. ​The stand
first is “​Counsellors and other mental health providers fear being labelled
transphobic”. ​The Article reports the views expressed by Marcus Evans, a
psychotherapist and former governor of the Tavistock clinic, which provides a
gender identity development service (“GIDS”). Dr Evans resigned from the
Tavistock in February 2019 following the publication of a critical report into the
services provided by GIDS, raising concerns from a number of staff members.
The Article also appeared on page one of the Observer on Sunday 28 July
2019 with substantially the same headline.

2. The Article is focused on the criticisms expressed by Dr Evans, and specifically

his belief that “​the trans political agenda has encroached on the clinical
environment surrounding and within the Gender Identity Development Service”.
The Article reports on the rise in the number of children referred to GIDS since
2013 and quotes from one woman who identified as a trans man in her teens
but had subsequently de-transitioned. The Article quotes Evans as saying the
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 following about the report written by David Bell, one of the Tavistock’s former
governors:

“’[T]hey reported inadequate assessments, patients pushed through for early medical
interventions and an inability to stand up to pressure from trans lobbies’, Evans said”

3. The following paragraph says:

“A review of Bell’s concerns by the trust did not ‘identify any immediate issues in
relation to patient safety or failings in the overall approach … in responding to the
needs of young people”.

4. The Article includes direct quotes from Evans, which are critical of the
approach taken by the Tavistock, as well as reporting similar concerns held by
others including a report in the Times that the Royal College of Paediatricians
and Child Health had ​“asked its ethics and law advisory committee to look at
the ethics surrounding the rapid increase in the use of blockers to treat under
16s who identify as transgender.”

5. The Article also includes a detailed statement from the trust that

“​GIDS is a thoughtful and safe service. It cares for young people at a

vulnerable time in their lives. Our experience with this group of patients, which
is a highly diverse group, indicates that the choice to do nothing is not
neutral and may lead to significant harm.

The service is thorough and systematic in its approach to exploring with the
young people and families the best way of dealing with their distress and the
implications of different choices”

6. The Article was the subject of a number of complaints. This is one of two such
complaints which has progressed to the Panel from the RE.

Correspondence with the RE

7. The Complainant first contacted the RE by email on 29 July 2019. She alleged
that the reference to “highly politicized transgender groups” a “trans political
agenda” and “trans lobbies” with influence over GIDS was without foundation
and breached Clause 1 of the Code (accuracy). She also alleged a breach of
Clause 12 (discrimination) (which must be taken as a reference to the IPSO
Code and should be read as Clause 13 in the PCC Code). She requested a
correction and an apology.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 8. The RE responded on 2 August 2019. In error, the initial response referred to a
different version of the headline which had been published on Twitter and
which had been the subject of a significant volume of other complaints.
However, in relation to the substance of the Article, the RE noted the public
interest in reporting on transgender issues and that the views expressed in the
Article were clearly presented as the views of one individual. The Article was a
reasonable expression of an alternative view and did not necessarily reflect the
stance taken by The Observer. However, the RE drew the Complainant’s
attention to the possibility of submitting a letter in response.

9. The Complainant responded by email on 2 August 2019 expressing

dissatisfaction with the RE’s response and complained that there was a lack of
balance in the Article and that there had been a failure to take any steps to
verify the accuracy of the views expressed.

10. The RE responded again on 2 August 2019, reiterating that the Article was
accurately reporting the views expressed by Marcus Evans and that it included
a response from the Trust. There was therefore a disagreement in views but
there was no evidence that there had been a failure to take care not to publish
inaccurate information as required by the Code. The offer of a letter to the
editor challenging the views expressed in the Article was repeated.

11. The Complainant nonetheless felt that her complaint had not been fairly
looked at and asked for the matter to be referred to the Panel.

Complaint to the Panel

12. The Complainant complained to the Panel on 6 August 2019. She alleges
breaches of Clauses 1 (Accuracy).

Relevant aspects of the Code

1. Clause 1 of the Code is headed “Accuracy” and provides as follows:

“Accuracy

1. The Press ​must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or

distorted information, including pictures;

2. A ​significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once

recognised ​must be corrected​, promptly and with due prominence, and
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the
Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.”

3. The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between

1
comment, conjecture and fact;

[…]

2. Although not referred to explicitly in the complaint, the Panel has also
considered Clause 2 “Opportunity to Reply” which provides as follows:

“A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies must be given when

reasonably called for”

Discussion
3. The Panel is tasked with consideration of whether there has been a breach of
one or more of the relevant provisions of the Code. It cannot consider any
matter beyond this. A disagreement in viewpoint between a publication and its
readers will not necessarily mean that the Code has been breached. In this
regard, the Panel notes that the Article is a news item, reporting on the
concerns expressed by a former Governor of Tavistock GIDS. There is a
distinction between accurately reporting views, with which others may disagree
or say there is no evidence of, and reporting without any question or balance
views which are obviously inaccurate or misleading.

4. In this case, the Panel takes into account the controversial and sensitive nature
of the subject matter, the status of Dr Evans who may reasonably be described
as an “expert”, and the fact that the Article contains a detailed and extensive
rebuttal of his concerns by the Trust. In the Panel’s view, it is important to note
that the Article is not discussing whether or not transgender children ​should be
assisted and supported in transitioning or in their preferred gender identity.
What the Article is reporting, are concerns raised first in a report which led to Dr
Evans’ resignation as well as concerns raised by him subsequently about the
adequacy of the assessment process and what was – in his view – a tendency
to bow to pressure from pro trans rights lobbyists which led to an increase in
the number of young people wishing to transition and being medically assisted
in so doing by the Tavistock GIDS. The Panel notes that this is based on his
own experience as a former governor at the Tavistock.

1
Emphasis supplied.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 5. The Panel does not consider the Observer’s reporting of these concerns to be
either inaccurate or misleading. It has seen no evidence that the Observer
should have been aware that the views expressed by Dr Evans were so
ill-founded as to be demonstrably inaccurate but in any event, the Article
provides a counter to those views through the statement provided by the Trust.
It also includes the Trust’s own internal findings which did not identify any
concerns of the sort raised by Dr Evans. The Panel also notes that Dr Evans is
not the only professional to have expressed concerns of this nature. The
complainant suggests that the Observer simply took Dr Evans’ views at face
value whereas in fact other professionals such as Dr Kirsty Entwistle's raised
similar concerns about GIDS in Leeds, and David Bell raised concerns from ten
members of staff at the Tavistock.

6. The press must be free to report on matters of public interest provided it does
so in a fair and balanced manner. It must “take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information”. In this case, the Panel is satisfied that the
Article does not present the views of Dr Evans as its own and that it was
reasonable and in the public interests to report on concerns raised by a high
profile individual with professional experience in this area. These concerns
were first raised in an internal report and have been reported upon elsewhere,
including in the Guardian.

7. The Panel reminds itself of the Guardian News & Media Code of Practice which
refers to “fairness” and in particular the following: ​“The voice of opponents no
less than of friends has a right to be heard . . . It is well be to be frank; it is even
better to be fair” ​(CP Scott, 1921). The Panel considers it essential that the
Guardian and Observer are able to report on views which may be contrary to its
own or of many of its readers. The Panel is satisfied that it has done so
responsibly in this case and does not find there to have been any breach of the
Code.

Dated: 01/12/19

Signed:

John Willis, Chair review panel.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
Signed:

Elinor Goodman, panel member.

Signed:

Geraldine Proudler, panel member

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG