A bit of news from your favourite Scottish former parliamentary candidate and mine Euan "Sophie Molly" Weddell - whom I vaguely mean to start a thread about seeing as he really keeps making a fool of himself in a multitude of ways.
The UK's press ombudsman has rejected his complaint against the Sunday Times for - what else? - misgendering him.
00092-26 Molly v The Sunday Times
Complaint Summary
Sophie Molly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How the ex-Green stole Christmas”, published on 21 December 2025.
Summary of Complaint
1. Sophie Molly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How the ex-Green stole Christmas”, published on 21 December 2025.
2. The article – which appeared on page 12 – was a comment piece which commented on a Christmas card that had been withdrawn from sale. The card reportedly said: “This Christmas I’m identifying as a Grinch”. The article said, “Here’s how censorship happens” and a “lunatic objects to the card, saying it ‘belittles the identity of trans and non-binary people’. Sainsbury’s immediately removes the card from sale and issues a cringing apology stressing how inclusive it is.” The article went on to say: “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone in the country was remotely disquieted by the card except for the lunatic, a bloke called ‘Sophie Molly’, who was considered too extreme for the Green Party. But Mr Molly gets his way, because that’s how it works.”
3. The article under complaint appeared within a larger column where the columnist expressed his views on a number of subjects. It said:
“We have had three centuries of congenital idiots deciding who should run the country and our local authorities, and the result of the last general election must have made it clear to Sir Keir Starmer that the public had, through its electoral lunacy, lost the right to decide who was in charge henceforth. ‘We got a landslide. And some people even voted for Ed Davey. Goes to show the electorate has completely lost its marbles, so no more elections,’ said someone who identified as a spokesperson for Labour but actually isn’t one and is instead me.”
4. It also said: “These days when one of them says, ‘Mice can easily be taught to play the cello,’ or, ‘Manchester is only seven miles from London, as the crow flies,’ or ‘Anybody can have a cervix’, I just smile benignly, say, ‘How very right you are,’ and let them get on with it.”
5. It said, further, that there had been a “… failure — now a full eight months after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict — to deliver guidance to public bodies on how to distinguish between men and women, derived from that decision”.
6. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format. This version was published on 20 December 2025.
7. The complainant was the individual referenced in the article. She said the article breached Clause 1 as it was inaccurate to refer to her as a “bloke” and “Mr Molly” as she is a woman. She also said it was inaccurate to refer to her as a “lunatic”.
8. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 12 as it referred to her as a “bloke” and “Mr Molly”, which she considered to be a pejorative and prejudicial reference to her gender identity.
9. In addition, she said referring to her as a “lunatic” was a prejudicial reference towards her protected characteristics. She said it implied she was mentally ill, as she is a trans woman. She also believed the term was misogynistic and a pejorative reference to her disability.
10. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 3, as she said it was a clear example of targeted harassment.
11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the column was clearly distinguished as opinion and the writer was well-known for his strong views, which were often provocatively expressed. It said his weekly column used satire, hyperbole and exaggeration to highlight matters which the writer regarded as important. It added that the article concerned censorship and criticised the willingness of the supermarket to give in to what the writer considered to be baseless demands. It said a reasonable reader would understand the references under complaint to be the columnist’s view, given the context of the column as a whole.
12. The publication did not consider that referring to the complainant as a “bloke”, or “Mr” was inaccurate. It said the Supreme Court clarified in 2025 that for the purposes of discrimination law, the words 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man respectively. It said the columnist stated a matter of biological fact and reflected the position in law.
13. Turning to the term “lunatic”, the publication said that all dictionaries acknowledged the common, colloquial use of “lunatic” to mean "a person whose actions are marked by extreme folly or recklessness” or variants of this meaning. It said the more limited definition of “an individual who is mentally ill” was now described by the OED as “archaic”. The publication said the article’s reference was colloquial and conveyed the columnist’s conviction that the complainant bullied a supermarket chain into withdrawing an inoffensive Christmas card. It said this was a matter of opinion, on a subject of important public debate.
14. In response to the complaint under Clause 12, the publication said the columnist was entitled to criticise the complainant’s conduct in a labelled opinion column. It acknowledged the complainant considered the column was offensive, however it said this was not a matter for the Code. It added that it was possible to be offensive without being discriminatory.
15. The publication said, when interpreting “prejudicial or pejorative” in Clause 12 in “the full spirit of the Code”, the Preamble to the Editors’ Code would appear to set the bar quite high, given it makes clear the Code should not be interpreted so broadly so as to infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It said Clause 12 related to discrimination, rather than to being unkind and that some serious harm or grave violation of rights would seem at least to be implied, as it is in discrimination law. It said that without such harm or violation of rights, the Clause would be open to abuse by those who would coerce public discourse and limit freedom of speech.
16. In regard to the description of the complainant as a “bloke” and “Mr” the publication did not accept this was a prejudicial or pejorative reference to the complainant’s gender identity or sex. It said the article made no reference to the complainant’s gender identity and that the Supreme Court had clarified that biological sex is determined at birth, is immutable and of “foundational importance” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It said gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic and those legal protections prevent direct or indirect discrimination. However, it said that those legal protections did not, mandate the use of particular pronouns or forbid all reference to biological sex and did not dictate the language an opinion columnist may use. It said that the complainant had set out his personal conviction that the complainant, in bringing a frivolous, trivial complaint that sought to curb the rights of others in the absence of any real harm, had abused the hard-won protections enshrined in equalities law.
17. The publication said that the word “lunatic” was not a reference to any of the complainant’s protected characteristics. It said it was unaware of any mental affliction or disability experienced by the complainant. It said the term “lunatic” was a hyperbolic way of conveying what the columnist regarded as being an irrational argument to withdraw a Christmas card. The publication noted that in the same column, the columnist had said the entire British public was suffering from lunacy and had “lost its marbles” and that he agreed when people say that mice can easily be taught to play the cello. The publication said an ordinary reader would understand the tone and have no difficulty deciding how much weight to give to these various claims.
18. The publication said the columnist did not belittle the complainant’s protected characteristics but was directed at her public actions.
19. In regard to Clause 3, the publication said the complainant was not approached prior to publication of the article. It said the article was a brief item and the only time the complainant had been featured in the column. It said, therefore, that Clause 3 was not engaged.
20. The complainant said the Supreme Court ruling did not allow for a blanket right to purposefully and wilfully misgender people. She said the judgment made clear it did not “remove protections for transgender people against harassment or discrimination under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”
Relevant Clause Provisions
Preamble
…
t is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit. It should be interpreted neither so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it infringes the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevents publication in the public interest.
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 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
21. The Committee had regard to the context: this was a comment piece in which the columnist had expressed his objection to censorship in robust terms, and was clearly distinguished as such by the inclusion of the columnist’s prominent byline and photograph and by the satirical and provocative tone. The Committee took into account that in various parts of the column, the columnist had expressed his views on behaviours which he considered amounted to “lunacy”, and on the issue of biological sex and self-identification following the decision of the Supreme Court.
22. The Committee first considered whether the descriptions of the complainant in the article had breached Clause 1. The Committee was satisfied that the description of the complainant as a “lunatic” was distinguished as an expression of the columnist’s view of the complainant’s reported actions, rather than a statement of fact about the complainant’s mental health. The references to the complainant as a “bloke” and “Mr Molly” were similarly made in the context of the columnist expressing his views on issues of sex and gender identity which were referenced throughout the column, including the columnist’s view that biological sex is immutable. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that these references constituted a failure to take care over accuracy, or that there was a significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
23. The Committee next turned to the complaint that referring to the complainant as “a bloke” and “Mr Molly” was pejorative and/or was a prejudicial reference to the complainant’s sex or gender identity, in breach of Clause 12.
24. The Committee acknowledged that these references were offensive to the complainant. However, it noted that the fact that a reference may be offensive does not, in itself, mean that it breaches the Editors’ Code – even where it relates to one of the characteristics identified in Clause 12. The right to “inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain” remains, so long as doing so does not amount to a breach of Clause 12.
25. The Committee again took account of the context; the article was a satirical piece which commented on the action taken by the complainant in relation to a greetings card and the supermarket chain’s response. The Committee considered that the references were not prejudicial or pejorative references to the complainant’s sex or gender identity in these circumstances. Rather, they expressed – in provocative terms – the columnist’s rejection of what he considered to be censorship, against the background of his view that biological sex is immutable. In employing the references, the columnist was emphasising his position on the subject of censorship by expressing his unwillingness to have his own views censored. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 12 on this point.
26. Turning to the complaint under Clause 12 about the use of the word “lunatic”, the Committee considered that – when read in the context of a clearly provocative and polemical column - this was clearly a reference to the complainant’s actions in response to the greetings card, rather than being a pejorative or prejudicial reference to a protected characteristic of the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.
27. With regards to Clause 3, the Committee appreciated the complainant found the article offensive and upsetting. However, while the article was critical of the complainant, the Committee did not consider the publication of one article about the complainant constituted a pattern of behaviour which could constitute harassment. As such, there was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusions
28. The complaint was not upheld.
Date complaint received: 07/01/2026
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/04/2026
Independent Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
x 35
