It was a comment piece

Euan Weddell aka Sophie Molly lost.

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 The article – which appeared on page 12 – was a comment piece which commented on a Christmas card that had been withdrawn from sale.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.”

That’s how it works because for some unfathomable reason, the fad known as “being trans” is currently seen and approached as the most vulnerable and wounded and deserving of every sympathy and assistance and a pony.

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.”

…

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”.

He said. He said the article blah blah blah. And of course he’s wrong: he is a bloke and he is at the very least chaotic and fanciful in the things he says. I would put it more strongly but I don’t want to be extradited and forced to argue with him in person.

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.

He can consider things to be whatever he likes, but he doesn’t get to force everyone else to agree. That applies to pretty much anything he could say, because it’s all likely to be wrong.

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.

Well, there again – he acts lunatically, so what can he expect? If you want to be seen as not a lunatic, don’t carry on in public as if you were wearing a billboard with LUNATIC on both sides in bright orange lettering.