Thank you all so much for signing and showing us your support, it has been overwhelming and comforting to have seen a community come together to denounce this racism. As East and South East Asian folks in the West, we are unfortunately used to this kind of commentary, but it doesn’t make it hurt any less. To know that we have people who agree it is unacceptable has been incredibly affirming. 

We have had two responses from The Sunday Times, both of which are incredibly disappointing and avoid  the direct ask of a retraction and apology. 

Steve Bleach, the Letters Editor, has sent this response to many complainants: 

“Thanks for getting in touch. The intention here was to reflect the affection in which Prince Philip was held by so many, despite his imperfections; it was absolutely not intended to suggest approval for that particular remark, and we very much regret that some readers have taken it as doing so. The phrase was removed from our digital edition but regrettably it was too late to remove it from the print edition”

This message, or a slight variation of it, was repeated to different complainants, indicating it is a response Steve has been approved to share. You may share your views with Steve here: steve.bleach@sunday-times.co.uk 

Our attempts to contact The Times have resulted in the generic message from Steve, or silence. However, as our petition passed 17,000 signatures from incredible people, The Sunday Times’ Editor Emma Tucker released this statement to Press Gazette:

“The Sunday Times apologises for the offence caused in a piece about the Duke of Edinburgh, published in our print edition,” Tucker said.

“This so-called ‘gaffe’ made by Prince Philip was a well-known aspect of his life story. The Sunday Times did not intend to condone it.

“It was noted by us on Saturday night that the sentence was offensive and it was not published in digital editions.

“Christina Lamb has spent her whole career reporting on discrimination and injustices against people in every part of the world and never intended to make light of his remark in any way.”

This statement has not been sent to us, simply to the public. It has been crafted to seem like an apology, but is a non-apology that directly ignores our original asks: a published retraction and apology. An apology should take accountability by acknowledging the specific harm caused and the responsibility for it with a commitment to do better. 

None of the components of an apology are reflected in the statement, they simply use the word ‘apologise’.

They may now say there was no intent to cause offense, but they have. It is impact that matters, not intent, and the impact is trivialising and approving of racism. There is no explanation as to why this specific comment was chosen, or why it was not edited out before being sent to print. 

It is also disappointing that Christina Lamb’s previous work has been used as a way to dismiss and deflect from this very valid criticism. Despite her career covering “discrimination”, she has not understood why “offending people with gaffes about slitty eyes, even if secretly we rather enjoyed them.” is highly inappropriate.

Christina Lamb has made light of the remark, and has also given her tacit approval. Whether or not The Sunday Times believes this accurately reflects their views is irrelevant - they have given her the position of the front page of the newspaper, and let her work pass through the hands of the Editors, sub-editors, and copy editors to send this to print. 

Both attempts at apologies that have ignored our asks further dismisses the pain of our community and sends a message that our pain is not valid. 

Given this disappointing non-apology, we are now asking you to join us in writing a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Office outlining your upset at The Sunday Times’ flagrant violation of the Editors' Code of Practice. 

To help you shape your complaint, please see the below example. You can complain here.

Dear IPSO,

I am writing in regards to The Sunday Times violating the Editors’ Code of Practice on the 18th of April, 2021 in their front page reporting of the late Prince Philip’s funeral, written by author Christina Lamb, who serves as the paper’s Chief Foreign Correspondent. 

In reference to the late Duke, Lamb writes: “Prince Philip was the longest-serving royal consort in British history – an often crotchety figure, offending people with gaffes about slitty eyes, even if secretly we rather enjoyed them.”  

This line was removed from the online version - without a correction note - and is incredibly offensive for a multitude of reasons. 

The IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice clearly states: 

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.

This framing of the comment as something secretly enjoyed by a collective “we” is in clear violation of this policy. 

The first code of Accuracy is also in violation, as the front page placement frames the article as a news story about the funeral at Windsor, and not an opinion piece. 

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

This comments of both the late Prince’s and Christina Lamb are just that - comment and conjecture, but this is not made clear at all. 

Editor Emma Tucker released a public statement devoid of accountability for the harm caused or justification as to why this line was allowed to be printed. 

It is incredibly disappointing that this incident and apology are both poor journalism, and I look forward to your response on the lacking journalistic integrity and IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice violations,

Kindest,

[Name]

Please feel free to use this template, or pull parts out to create your own. It is important that your complaint includes the violated codes, and Discrimination 12. (i) is the critical code to reference. 

Thank you again for your support and solidarity, and we hope this can be part of shaping the news industry to respectfully and accurately represent the true fabric of the UK.