|
If
you look at this lot they are, apart from one, either part of
or connected to the news media or the legal professions so, when
your website publishes on the Internet how bad a law firm had
carried out your litigation and your complaint is against a newspaper
(Guardian) for publishing
false defamatory content and accusing you of the crimes of another
person, you haven't got a chance when you make an official complaint
to be investigated by this 'Barmy Army'.
The
Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following
Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical
industry and was ratified by the PCC in January 2011.
THE
editors' CODE.
1 .
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to
publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including
pictures.
ii)
A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once
recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving
the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan,
must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly
and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which
it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise,
or an agreed statement is published.
2 .
Opportunity to reply..
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when
reasonably called for.
Let me
also quote from their rule book;
"It is essential that an
agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but
.
in the full spirit".
With
all the 'brain power'' supposedly pocessed by the 'Barmy Army'
you would have expected them, or at least most of them,
to be able to understand the "Editors Code" of practice.
The
Guardian's
Managing Editor, Elisabeth Ribbans, and their 'Star
Idiot' Journalist who bestowed
the
title of "The
scourge of all law firms, good and bad"
upon
me also accused me of the misdemeanours and the
High Court convictions of another person, published it on the
Internet and would for six weeks refuse to remove this defamatory
content allowing it to be copied by scores of other media websites
and flooding the Internet with false accusations. What does the
"Editors Code" say "The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information", let me further quote
from the "E-C" "A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once
recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published".
Surely that's not hard for the
'Barmy Army' to understand.
A few days after the Guardian's
publication I sent emails to all relevant mailboxes just asking
for a correction to their article but, although I receive automated
confirmation replies, I was ignored. I repeated the process 15
days later and again receive automated replies. Let me quote the
Guardian's own policies "It is the
Guardian's policy to correct significant errors as soon as possible.
...errors may be corrected at our discretion".
At the Guardian's
"discretion" was
to ignored me for six weeks.
The only course
of action left to me was a complaint
to the PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION..
First you read the 'rules' then follow the 'rules'
therefore the 'rules' for the complaint handling appear to be straightforward,
as "The Press Complaints Commission
is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was
framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified
by the PCC in January 2011".
First
contact with the PCC is through a Complaints Officer, mine was
a Rebecca Hales, who tries very hard to have you accept, after
the newspaper had been very bloody minded, an apology and then
they can all go away wagging their tails having s--t on yet another
idiot.. Having failed to have me
accept an apology I'm told by Rebecca Hales "we
ask the Commission to take a
view on the matter under the terms of the Editors' Code".
'Editors Code'
what would John McEnroe make of that? "You
can't be serious".
Now
let me tell you what this 'Barmy Army' came up with and
you won't find this anywhere in their 'Editors Code';
The
PPC's 'decision'
The failure to respond to a direct complaint was, of course, regrettable
and the Commission took the view the inaccuracy could have been
corrected sooner. It accepted the newspaper's explanation that
a genuine human error had resulted in an oversight and remained
satisfied that the action - taken on the day the complaint was
received via the PCC- represented a sufficient remedy to the complaint
under clause 1 (ii)".
You
might even notice, "...that
the action
- taken on the day the complaint was received via
the PCC",
that
the 'Barmy Army' ignored the fact that my twelve emails
were sent almost six weeks earlier. Oh yeah,
'human
error'
you won't find that in any of the 'rule' books either, I've looked!
A
request for a 'Review' has been sent
to Lt Gen Sir Michael Willcocks
independentreviewer@pcc.org.u
What
does 'Mickey' have to say "I
have no locus here"
|
