03483-25 Portes v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour’s class war plan risks missing the point”, published on 11 August 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 19, was a comment piece on the topic of class. The sub-heading of the article read: “The fact that a plumber is likely to earn more than a professor underlines why dated prejudice should not guide policy”. The article then reported that “the fact that a plumber is likely these days to earn more than a professor doesn’t turn the latter’s offspring into horny-handed sons of toil”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He provided data from various bodies which he said showed that, on average, qualified or experienced plumbers could expect to earn around £40,000 - £60,000, whereas the average professorial salary was around £90,000.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said, firstly, that the article was clearly labelled as a comment piece about the fluidity of the British class system. It said that the sentence under complaint was not an analysis of data of the average salaries of plumbers and professors, but rather an illustration of a polemical point about the possibility of social mobility. The publication said the sentence did not amount to an absolute statement, but rather was a general comment on “a plumber” and “a professor” and what they may be “likely” to earn. It said the complainant’s reading of the article was overly-literal, and that the term “likely” did not indicate a statement of statistical probability.

6. The publication noted that one of the sources provided by the complainant stated that self-employed plumbers may earn considerably more than £60,000 a year, and was caveated by various factors, such as location and the nature of a job. It also said that the article made no claim about annual salary, and noted that plumbers are more likely to charge by the hour, and that hourly earnings in certain areas for certain jobs would be well in excess of the hourly earnings of an “average professor”. It also noted that many professors would earn significantly less than the average figure.

7. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position. He said that the article could not be read as a “polemical point”. but rather made a claim of fact in relation to what each profession was “likely” to earn. He also noted that the government set the “standard going rate” for a plumber to be entitled to a skilled worker visa as £38,100.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

8. The Committee firstly noted that the article was clearly a comment piece. Nevertheless, the publication was still required not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and ensure that comment was distinguished from fact.

9. The question for the Committee was whether it was inaccurate to report that it was “likely” for a plumber to earn more than a professor. The Committee did not accept the complainant’s position that the only meaning of this sentence was that the average annual salary of a plumber was higher than that of a professor. The article did not discuss average salaries. Rather, it commented that there was a likelihood of a plumber earning more than a professor.

10. It was apparent that not every professor nor every plumber would earn the “average” wage for their occupation, and that the figures were more complex, taking into account location, type of work, seniority and the difference between a yearly salary and hourly work. The Committee was satisfied that the publication had shown that there would be a significant number of instances in which a plumber would earn more than a professor. In these circumstances, and where the article was a comment piece on the impact of perceptions of class on social mobility and the problems inherent in defining class, the Committee found it was not inaccurate for the publication to report “that a plumber is likely to earn more than a professor”. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

11. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

12. N/A

Date complaint received: 15/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/12/2025