The tragic outbreak of meningitis B among students and teenagers in eastern Kent this weekend has highlighted the Daily Mail’s persistent failure to uphold basic standards of respect when reporting on death and bereavement.

One of the victims, a sixth-form student, tragically died over the weekend. Her family made the decision to allow the BBC to first share the news of her death, on the clear condition that her surname not be published.

The Daily Mail appear to have chosen to ignore that request.

In multiple articles, the paper published her full name, alongside identifying details of her family. 

The BBC also said that a picture had been authorised for publication by the family. The Daily Mail have used that picture, but also published a second image of the girl with her family. It is not clear if permission had been obtained for use of that image, or if it was taken without consent from social media - which is common practice at some news publishers.

This raises serious questions under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code. The Code is unambiguous: in cases involving personal grief, reporting must be handled with sensitivity. Respecting the clearly expressed wishes of a bereaved family should not be optional, especially when there is no public interest in publishing additional personal details, as is the case here.

This is not an isolated lapse. It reflects a broader pattern.

As detailed by the Press Justice Project, (here) a family recently complained to IPSO following the Daily Mail’s conduct after a young woman died in a skydiving accident. A journalist reportedly remained outside the family home for hours, repeatedly knocking on the door across consecutive days. The behaviour escalated further, with allegations that the journalist entered the porch, banged on an internal door, and looked through personal mail after a delivery. This is not public interest journalism in any sense, it's harassment and intrusion, at a time of acute vulnerability, with the sole purpose of getting clicks.

Mandy Garner’s experience provides another stark example. After her 20-year-old daughter was killed by a reckless driver, the Mail Online obtained and published CCTV footage of the fatal incident within hours, despite police requests not to do so. The footage was published under the headline: “EXCLUSIVE: Shocking moment young woman is killed by speeding hit-and-run driver escaping police - as she is flung 20 feet into the air and lands in front of horrified onlookers at London bus stop.” At that point, Garner and her family had not yet informed all of their children of the death. She was concerned that her daughter’s friends, classmates, and even her own siblings could come across such a graphic video online before hearing the news from the family themselves. In publishing it, her daughter’s dignity in her final moments was disregarded. Like many cases, her death was treated as an opportunity to attract attention rather than something requiring care and restraint.

These cases, documented by Hacked Off and the Press Justice Project, point to a consistent editorial approach: one that prioritises immediacy and engagement over care or the public interest. 

The tragic outbreak of meningitis in Kent should be an opportunity to inform the public of facts; where to get antibiotics and vaccines, how people can protect themselves and others. Not cause more pain to a family that has already experienced the worst imaginable.

‍