A children’s worker who was alleged to have boasted to a female colleague that she could “turn any woman gay” has lost her complaint against a news website which covered her story.

WalesOnline published two reports of a hearing of the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Education Workforce Council involving children’s home youth worker Sian Moses.

The hearing took place following allegations that Ms Moses had made sexual advances towards another woman, a married co-worker referred to as “Colleague A”, and that she had used excessive force against children in the home.

WalesOnline reported a quote from the alleged victim in which she said: “Moses began making inappropriate comments towards me like ‘I could have you if I wanted you’ and ‘I can turn any woman gay’.”

Ms Moses denied the allegations and complained that in reporting them the website had not only breached Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which covers accuracy, but also Clauses 2 (privacy), 11 (victims of sexual assault) and 12 (discrimination.)

However the Independent Press Standards Organisation rejected all the complaints and made clear that the website had both been entitled to report what was said at the hearing and had taken care to report it accurately.

Ms Moses said that the reports were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because the comment about “turning any woman gay” had been said by her colleague, not her, and similarly that it was she, not her colleague, who had received the unwanted sexual advances.

She claimed that the stories breached her privacy because they included a photo of her on the street that was taken without her knowledge.

The complainant further alleged that the articles breached Clause 11 as they named her rather than the unnamed colleague who she claimed had made the sexual advances.

And she claimed that that the reports also breached Clause 12 on the grounds that they discriminated against her as a lesbian.

WalesOnline did not accept any breaches of the Code. It said that the references to the complainant making comments of a sexual nature came from the findings of the hearing.

It said that the photo did not intrude into the complainant’s privacy as it had been taken in a public place and did not contain any private information about her.

On Clause 11, the website did not consider that the alleged sexual advances amounted to sexual assault, and said this had been confirmed by the police.

Finally the publication denied acting in a way that was discriminatory towards the complainant. While it had reported on her gender and sexual orientation, this was genenuinely relevant to the story and it had not used any discriminatory language about her.

In its ruling, IPSO noted that Ms Moses had denied the allegations but said the website had taken due care to report them as such, and that the hearing had been ongoing.

It said that the photograph, which had been taken without the complainant’s knowledge, had been taken on a public street and simply showed her likeness, and not any private activity about which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The clause regarding victims of sexual assault had not been engaged as the website had not identified the complainant as a victim of sexual assault and “sexual advances” did not meet this threshold.

And it said that neither of the articles had used prejudicial or pejorative references to Ms Moses’ sexual orientation or gender and that there was therefore no breach of Clause 12.

The complaint was not upheld and the full ruling can be read here.