New post Tony Bennett Today at 7:51 am
COMPLAINT IS MADE ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The text of the article below, the complaints are interleaved -in blue
++++++++++++++++++++
COMPLAINT
Mr David Dinsmore
Editor
The Sun
1 London Bridge Place
LONDON
SE1 9GF
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Independent Press Standards Organisation
Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London EC4M 7LG
Telephone: 0300 123 2220
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tuesday 5 May 2015
Internet article, 3 May 2015, by Ben PERRIN: Exclusive
Exclusive by Ben PERRIN
Trolls fork out for Maddie lie cop's court bill
COMPLAINT: Dr Goncalo Amaral is described as ‘The Maddie lie cop’. He did not lie about anything. He has held and holds an opinion about the case based on the facts as he sees them.
The court case in Lisbon which required him to pay the McCanns 500,000 euros compensation did not say that he lied about anything. I can say this as I have studied an English translation of the full, lengthy decision of the judge, which runs to over 50 pages of A4. There is no accusation within that judgment that Dr Amaral lied.
The core decision of the judge in the Lisbon court was that in balancing the respective rights of the parties, she had to consider Dr Goncal Amaral’s right under the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression with the McCanns’ Convention right to have their reputation preserved. She came down on the side of the McCanns.
It is relevant also to point out that this judgment defies earlier rulings of the Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and the Portuguese Supreme Court (March 2011) which decided that Dr Amaral’s book should not be banned. Below I set out the core ruling in those two judgments:
QUOTE
We thus arrive at this conclusion. It seems important to stress the following:
The indicative facts that led to the McCanns being made formal suspects [arguidos] in the initial investigation were not deemed by the Ministry of Justice to be sufficient to lead to anyone being charged with any criminal offence. But those very same facts, seen through another prism and from another foundation, may well lead to a different conclusion from that reached by the Justice Ministry. The evidence that was deemed to be insufficient for a criminal prosecution can be understood in a different way, for example in an interpretation that can quite legitimately be published as a work of literature, so long as the said interpretation does not offend the fundamental rights of anyone involved. And as we have stated above, we have explained why the interpretation in Dr Amaral’s book does not offend the McCanns’ rights.
To sum up: The main purpose of the book at issue in these proceedings - ‘Maddie: The Truth About A Lie’ - which was written by the defendant, Dr Goncalo Amaral – is to defend his personal and professional integrity, as the author himself points out straightaway in his preface, and throughout the text. The contents of the book do not violate any of the McCanns’ [the applicants’] fundamental rights.
The actions of its being written and published are justified under the constitutional rights which belong to all of us by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights and by Articles 37 and 38 of the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution.
Since that is the view we have taken on the matter, it follows that the decision made by the court [in September 2009 and confirmed by the court in February 2010 must be revoked.
The appeal by the defendant Goncalo Amaral in these proceedings is therefore allowed.
UNQUOTE
In both cases, these higher Portuguese courts awarded costs against the McCanns.
The Sun’s story tells its readers that Dr Amaral is a liar.
The recent court decision in the libel case did not rule anywhere that he had ‘lied’. The judge simply ruled that, in her judgment, his opinion on the case should hot have been published. That is wholly different from the charge of ‘lying’ which the Sun has levelled against Dr Amaral.
The Oxford Dictionary defines a ‘lie’ as ‘a deliberately false statement’. There was nothing in the Lisbon judgment decision that remotely accuses him of making a false statement of any kind, deliberate or otherwise.
Remedy sought
The Sun must publish a withdrawal of their false claim that Dr Amaral lied and must apologise for it. It should explain in any correction which IPSO may authorise that the judge merely said that he was not entitled to publish his opinion. The Sun should add that the judge’s decision contradicted the earlier decisive rulings of the two highest Portuguese courts that under the European Convention on Human Rights Dr Amaral was entitled to publish his thesis.
I add that I do not complain on Dr Amaral’s behalf. My complaint is founded on a seven-year long in-depth study of various aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and a detailed working knowledge of the six-year-long libel trial of Dr Amaral in particular. I simply do not agree to any British newspaper covered by IPSO printing outright unthruths.
++++++++++
TEXT
BRIT trolls are helping pay the legal bills of an ex-cop who said Madeleine McCann's parents were behind her disappearance.
Hundreds of donations have flooded into a sick online campaign for shamed Goncalo Amaral 56.
COMPLAINT: There are three complaints about the above two sentences so far as accuracy and distortion are concerned:
1) The claim that donors to Dr Amaral’s fund are ‘trolls’
2) The claim that they are ‘sick’, and
3) The claim that Dr Amaral is jutifiably referred to as ‘shamed’.
The term ‘troll’ has come in the mainstream press to have two meanings. The original meaning of ‘troll’ on the internet was to refer to those who might be described as ‘time-wasters’ or ‘disruptors’ – those who joined forums and chat rooms but who did not contribute positively to discussions but, instead, disrupted and distracted the others. It has also more recently been used to describe those who use the internet and social media sites to make nasty, sometimes appalling, comments about others. On occasions this merges into criminal behaviour where people make threats of violence.
I accept both current usages. I suggest that the Sun in using the term ‘trolls’ in this article does so in the latter sense i.e. people making nasty comments. The late Brenda Leyland, who committed suicide after being exposed by SKY News for making nasty comments about the McCanns, was for example labelled an ‘internet troll’ by the mainstream British media.
On point (1) it is conceded that a few of those who have made donations – and there have been hundreds – might on occasions have made nasty remarks about the McCanns and might be called ‘trolls’ by the press. Unless the Sun has evidence that most of these hundreds of donors are nasty people making nasty remarks about the McCanns, their blanket description of all the donors as ‘trolls’ is inaccurate and distorted and, moreover, deeply offensive to those who may have very legitimate reasons for donating to help Dr Amaral with his legal expenses. IPSO should insist that this comment should be withdrawn.
On point (2), the word ‘sick’, as used in this context, is clearly meant to suggest that all the hundreds who have donated are mentally ill, or have mental health ‘issues’. Again, unless the Sun has evidence that all or most of the donors are have mental health issues, IPSO should insist on grounds of accuracy and distortion that the Sun withdraw and apologise for their use of the terms ‘sick’.
On point (3), it is claimed that Dr Amaral is ‘shamed’. It is unclear why he should be regarded as ‘shamed’:
a) He had a very successful career as a senior detective
b) He solved another notorious ‘missing child’ case, tjhat of Joana Cipriano, by arresting and successfully prosecuting her murderers – her mother and uncle
c) He was removed from the investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann only because he openly criticised the British police and security services for interfering with his investigation – a complaint with a great deal of evidence to support it - and not because of any incompetence in his investigation
d) The concluding reports of the Head of the Portuguese Police and the Regional Attorney-General were clear in praising the comprehensive and thorough work of the team led by Dr Amaral
e) Despite the temporary banning of his book ‘The Truth About A Lie’ for 13 months, both the Portuguese Court of Appeal and the Portuguese Supreme Court, Portugal’s two highest courts, ruled that Dr Amaral was fully entitled to publish and sell his hypothesis on the case, also ruling that his conclusions were solidly based on the facts.
It is true that Dr Amaral was found guilty by a court of filing a false report. However, that criminal case was brought by the murderer of her own child, a woman that Dr Amaral had successfully convicted for her crime, and who lied comprehensively in court and elsewhere. Her claims of torture were not substantiated by the court, and claims that Dr Amaral had filed a false report were based on slender evidence. That is scarcely a sufficient basis for calling him ‘shamed’. The claim is a distortion (Clause 1(iii)).
++++++++++
TEXT
Today marks the eighth anniversary since Madeleine vanished from Praia da Luz, Portugal, when she was three years old.
An ex-British policeman is among those supporting the "injustice" of Amaral losing a libel case over allegations in his controversial book The Truth of the Lie.
He claimed that Maddie's parents Kate 47, and Scots- born Gerry 46 faked her abduction after she died. Amaral is set to launch a costly appeal after being ordered to pay the couple from Rothley, Leics, a total of £434,000.
Leanne Baulch, 22, of Birmingham is listed as organiser of the gofundme webpage "Legal Defence for Goncalo Amaral"- which aims to raise £25,000.
Some donors called the libel ruling in Lisbon a "perversion of justice"
John Green paid £10 and wrote "I am a retired policeman and will never understand how criminal proceedings have never been taken against the McCann's.
Mary Benusis said her £50 was in memory of a Twitter troll found dead after being exposed as being behind vile social media messages about the McCanns.
Speaking after winning the six year battle with Amaral, Kate McCann said "It was about stopping awful lies which hindered the search for Madeleine".
Last night a family spokesman declined to comment.
Expect the Sex and Travel option to arrive chez bennett! Sykes
