01640-25 STAMMA v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. STAMMA complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The poohbahs were like aristocratic ladies confronted by the pong of fish”, published on 8 April 2025.

2. The article appeared under the sub-headline “Westminster Sketch”, and the author’s name. It reported on an Environmental Audit Committee, and said:

“At a normal committee meeting, MPs would have got stuck in, scoffing that the witness were deluded. Why did this not happen? Well, this is a little difficult to discuss in the modern age but I am employed to give you a picture of proceedings, so here goes.

Professor Forster had a marked stammer. We’re not talking an occasional Ed Balls-style hesitation on some words. It was a full Fish Called Wanda job. Naturally one doff one’s cap to a chap who battles on through such an impediment but it quite unbalanced the meeting as an exercise in democratic scrutiny. Prof Forster was jolly difficult to understand”.

“This being Britain, no one mentioned it […] Mr Richardson froze when Prof Forster was fighting with a particular consonant and then nodded in relief when it finally popped out. The MPs gazed at the floor, the walls, their computers.

Barry Gardiner (Lab, Brent W) asked some question. Prof Forster, without delay, replied: 'Absolutely.' He then embarked on a second sentence and we hit a problem. Mr Gardiner hurriedly blurted that 'absolutely' was good enough!' Sammy Wilson (DUP, E Antrim) noted that clear communication was vital if climate campaigners were to persuade voters of their allegedly pressing case. Ms Pinchbeck, seamlessly: 'We recognise the need for good communication. I don't think we're necessarily the people to do that.'”

3. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline: “QUENTIN LETTS: The poohbahs were like aristocratic ladies confronted by the pong of fish.”

4. IPSO’s Regulations allow it to consider complaints from representative groups – i.e., a body or an organisation representing a group of people who have been affected by an alleged breach of the Code – where the alleged breach of the Code is significant and there is a substantial public interest in IPSO considering the complaint.

5. IPSO’s Complaints Committee decided that STAMMA represented a group of people who had been affected by the alleged breach of the Code; that the alleged breach was significant; and that there was a substantial public interest in IPSO considering the complaint. The complainant also said that Professor Forster was both aware, and did not object to, the complaint being raised.

6. Having considered all these factors, IPSO informed the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. It subsequently began an investigation into the article.

7. The complainant said that the article ridiculed and belittled Professor Forster on the basis of his stammer, in breach of Clause 12 (i). It considered the references in the article to be both prejudicial and pejorative - it stated that the article mocked the Professor, and did so to entertain. It added that it believed the article warranted an apology.

8. The complainant also questioned whether the Professor’s stammer was relevant to the article, and whether the references therefore breached Clause 12 (ii). It said the article used the Professor’s stammer as an excuse to mock his evidence given at the Committee, as opposed to interrogating the content of his evidence.

9. The complainant also commented that the “Fish Called Wanda” reference was “probably the most painful reference” the columnist could have chosen – it featured to a film in which an individual with a stammer is the “butt of the joke”, and the viewer is invited to laugh at someone unable to speak. The complainant said that the article indicated it was preferable for individuals to stammer less – or not at all.

10. The complainant also noted that stammering is, primarily, a neurological condition which can severely impact an individuals’ day to day activities – it could therefore be classed as a disability, as per the Equality Act 2010, and thus fell within the remit of Clause 12.

11. The publication apologised for any offence the article had caused. It also invited the complainant to write a letter for publication within its letters page – it said it hoped this would provide it with the chance to put its position on record. It did not, however, accept a breach of the Editors’ Code.

12. It set out, firstly, that it was important to note that the article was a parliamentary sketch, which is a “unique form of satirical journalism with a long and rich heritage in newspapers across the political spectrum”. It noted that the preamble to the Editors’ Code references the right of newspapers to challenge, shock and be satirical. The preamble also notes the right to freedom of expression.

13. It said that the specific extracts within the article – identified by the complainant as raising a breach of Clause 12 – were intended to be humorous, in keeping with the satirical style of the column. It did not consider any references to be prejudicial or pejorative, nor, it said, were they intended to be – there was no name-calling or mean-spiritedness, or any intention to offend.

14. The publication also denied that, when read as a whole, the article was prejudicial or pejorative. Indeed, it noted that the columnist had expressed his sympathies for the difficulties Professor Forster experienced, and applauded him for his efforts.

15. The publication also denied that references to Professor Forster’s stammer could be considered irrelevant, as per the terms of Clause 12 (ii). It commented that the article made the point that Professor Forster’s stammer had a real impact on proceedings and, in the columnist’s view, meant that the Professor was not subjected to the expected standard of scrutiny owing to a difficultly in understanding him. It also stated that, as a parliamentary sketch writer, the columnist would not be performing his task should he choose to ignore this.

16. Finally, the publication commented that it did not accept that Clause 12 was necessarily engaged – it noted that the complainant’s own literature made clear that stammering is not always a disability, but depends on the individual’s own perception. It said it did not believe Professor Forster had publicly described his stammer as a disability.

17. In response, the complainant maintained that the article had mocked someone’s disability, and did so in a manner which was pejorative. It objected to the “tone and jokes” of the article, and particularly noted the Fish Called Wanda reference – it reiterated that “anyone who stammers would be hard-pressed to find a more humiliating portrayal of someone who stammer”, given the film includes a scene where a “oddball, timid character with intense, prolonged moments of stammering is repeatedly belittled and bullied for stammering.”

18. The complainant also commented that the publication’s article had been written to entertain – it considered that it had punched down on someone’s disability. It commented that it did not dispute the right of the columnist to say that the Professor had stammered – it objected to the article expounding on it at length. It also stated that articles such as the one under complaint contributed to a stigma toward stammering.

19. It also commented that, whether or not Professor Forster considered himself disabled was irrelevant – a stammer fit the definition for a disability.

20. The complainant welcomed the opportunity to have a letter published; however, it did not consider that the word-count required by the publication for its letters page gave it sufficient space to set out its concerns.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

8. The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider complaints: (a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code; or (b) where an alleged breach of the Editors' Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected by the alleged breach; or (c) from a third party seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account. The Regulator may reject without further investigation complaints which show no prima facie breach of the Editors' Code and/or are without justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of opinion or to lobby) and/or vexatious and/or disproportionate.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee accepted the complainant’s position that a stammer can have a severe impact on an individual’s day to day life, and could therefore be considered to be a disability under the terms of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code

22. In making its decision under Clause 12, the Committee had regard for the Preamble to the Editors’ Code. The Preamble makes clear that the Code should not be interpreted so broadly as to infringe a newspaper’s right to freedom of expression, and explicitly references the right for newspapers to challenge, to be shocking, and to be satirical.

23. The Committee noted that Clause 12 (ii) does not prohibit references to an individual’s disability, provided they are genuinely relevant to the story. In this instance, the article was a parliamentary sketch piece, reporting on the proceedings of the hearing in question. The Committee noted that such hearings generally revolve around oral evidence – it considered, therefore, that the fact that the Professor had a stammer was relevant to the columnist’s perception of proceedings, which was what the article focused on. The Committee therefore did not consider that the reference to the Professor’s stammer was irrelevant, and there was no breach of Clause 12 (ii).

24. The Committee then turned to the question of whether the references in the article were prejudicial or pejorative in breach of Clause 12 (i). The Committee again noted that the article was a parliamentary sketch piece. Such articles are generally expected to be satirical and hyperbolic and, in some circumstances, may express views which could be considered offensive. The Committee was clear that this did not mean that the terms of Clause 12 (ii) did not apply; however, it considered the context of the article to be a relevant consideration to its decision.

25. The Committee took into account the need to ensure that the terms of the Code - including Clause 12 – are not applied so stringently as to unduly limit freedom of expression, including commentary on political proceedings which may shock and offend. The Committee did not consider that the references in the article amounted to prejudicial or pejorative references to the Professor’s stammer – rather, they were reflective of the writer’s view, expressed in a critical and hyperbolic way, on the hearing, with details of the nature of the stammer – such as the reference to a “Fish Called Wanda” – serving the purpose of painting a picture of proceedings.

26. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the references within the article to the Professor’s stammer amounted to a breach of Clause 12 (i). There was no breach of the Code.

27. Notwithstanding that there had been no breach of the Code, the Committee noted that the publication had offered to publish a letter from the complainant in response to the article – although the offer had not been accepted, the complainant had appeared to welcome this. The Committee noted that, although it had not upheld the complaint, the publication was still welcome to publish such a letter.

Conclusions

28. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 09/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/01/2026

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.