The article, headlined "Farm Inspector sacked after anti-cull tweets", reported that a government farm inspector had lost her job following a complaint from the National Farmers' Union (NFU) over critical comments she had tweeted about the badger cull. The piece said that it had emerged during her disciplinary hearing that many of these comments responded to tweets directed at her by the complainant, a supporter of the badger cull, who was identified by name and by his Twitter alias. The complainant argued that because his name did not appear on his Twitter profile, his identification by the newspaper intruded into his private life in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.
The newspaper denied that it had intruded into the complainant's privacy, explaining that a simple internet search identified the complainant as the author of the tweets. Furthermore, information about the complainant, including the identity of one of his former employers, had been included in his public exchange with the farm inspector.
Central to the Commission's consideration of the complaint was the nature of the information revealed about the complainant in the article: that he had tweeted comments supporting the badger cull to the farm inspector. It concluded that his views on this subject did not constitute private information. Furthermore, it noted that material freely obtainable through a simple internet search revealed his identity as the author of the comments, and that he had referred on Twitter to details of his professional background and current work that were likely to contribute to his identification. It did not find a breach of Clause 3 of the Code.
The complainant raised a separate complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice regarding the article's reference to the role that the Twitter exchange had played in the disciplinary tribunal, which was also rejected.
Charlotte Dewar, Director of Complaints and Pre-publication Services, said: "This was an interesting case about the extent to which individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when participating in a debate on Twitter about a contentious issue. The Commission took account of the fact that the complainant was traceable based on information in the public domain and had disclosed information about himself as part of the exchange that was likely to contribute to his identification in any case. The crucial factor, however, was the nature of the information: the Commission did not agree that the complainant's views about badgers constituted private information about him."
