01503-24 Barrett v Eastern Daily Press

Summary of Complaint

1. Joseph Barrett complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Eastern Daily Press breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Wymondham wets / Britain’s most fragile council? Authority introduces ‘red cards’ in meetings”, published on 5 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and page 12 – reported on a new motion at a local council, which had been proposed by the complainant, a local councillor. The article’s sub-headline read: “‘fragile’ council under fire over red card system”. It began by reporting that “councillors have been described as ‘wet’ after introducing a ‘red card’ system allowing them to duck out of meetings if proceedings cause their anxiety levels to rise.” It then stated that, “under the measures […] members will then go to a specially-designated room next to the chamber, where they will be provided with water and advice on ‘grounding techniques’, such as breathing exercises.” It explained the scheme had been, “introduced in response to a recent incident where long-standing [named] Tory councillor stepped down with a 45-second resignation speech in which he accused fellow members of ‘achieving nothing’.” It stated this “triggered a ‘psychiatric emergency’ which meant [the complainant] had to leave the meeting for 20 minutes, even though he was not one of [the Conservative councillor’s] targets. He has now proposed the new system which was unanimously approved by fellow members this week.” It stated the complainant, “who is autistic and has ADHD and PTSD, was not one of the targets of [the Conservative councillor’s] accusations but said his words had caused him to have a dissociative episode”. It went on to quote from the Conservative councillor, who said “the council isn’t fit for purpose. They’re fragile and have lost their way. This is so unnecessary”.

3. A substantively similar version of the article also appeared online under the headline, “Is this Britain's most fragile council? Authority introduces 'red cards' in meetings”.

4. The complainant said that the article was discriminatory towards him in breach of Clause 12. He said the references to “Britain’s most fragile council” and “Wymondham wets” were prejudicial and pejorative towards him, as he was the person who made the proposal for red cards in meetings, and the suggestion had been due to his experiences of complex post-traumatic stress disorder, autism and ADHD. He said his proposal was a lawful reasonable adjustment, made due to his disability. He said the article had implied that councillors who needed reasonable adjustments are not fit for purpose, and had created an intimidating, hostile environment for him as a direct result of the newspaper’s reporting on his proposal.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It denied the article implied the complainant was “wet”, or “fragile”. It said the terms referred to the council as a whole, and questioned about whether the council – as a collective body – was fit for purpose in representing the public. It said, regardless of whether the complainant had proposed the motion, the council as a group had agreed to it. It commented that it would set a dangerous precedent if an individual member of a public body could argue a term referring to the body as whole was discriminatory to an individual member.

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.

Findings of the Committee

6. The Committee acknowledged the distress caused to the complainant by the use of the words “fragile” and “wet”, and appreciated the complainant had been upset and offended by the references. However, Clause 12 is specific in its scope; it prohibits the use of prejudicial and pejorative references to an individual’s protected characteristics – including any physical or mental illness or disability. However, it does not prevent the use of terms which may be personally offensive, provided those references are not directed at a specific individual’s protected characteristic. Furthermore, while the Committee appreciated the complainant had negative experiences as a result of the article, this did not engage the Code.

7. As such, the essential question for the Committee was whether the references were directed at the complainant, given the Clause protects individuals from pejorative or prejudicial references. The article had been written in response to the introduction of the “red card” proposal and described “councillors” as “wet” and “fragile”; the complainant, as an individual, was not described in such terms. While the Committee appreciated the complainant had proposed the motion, it had been “unanimously” approved by the council, and the red card system could be used by anyone on the council. As such, the Committee considered that the words “fragile” and “wet” were directed at the council as a whole rather than the complainant as an individual. Given the complainant was not the individual subject of the allegedly pejorative and prejudicial references, there was no breach of Clause 12.

Conclusions

8. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

9. N/A

Date complaint received: 05/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/07/2024