Did the Daily Express apologise to Gonçalo Amaral?

[Mr Gray]

Then why talk about him ?

As to his theory, the crime remains UNKNOWN.

This thread is not about amaral its's about people who have misunderstood the express correction

[stephen25000]

This thread is not about amaral its's about people who have misunderstood the express correction

It's all about Amaral.

[Alice Purjorick]

if you don't care...and don't want to debate ..that's fine

the point is that these posters are criticising the express for inaccuracy whilst being innacurate themselves

My point is: there is nothing to debate
The Express made an error picked up by Tony Bennett who complained about it then the Express corrected the error.
The End.

Amaral is yesterday's man as far as any investigation is concerned. In fact he has been yesterday's man since October 2007 so why keep banging on about him? There's a civil case involving him which remains "in progress" that is running into its seventh or eighth year which looks like being about as constructive as Jarndyce v Jarndyce but that is hardly relevant to the child's disappearance and determination of what befell her.
As for accuracy vis a vis sceptic websites and supporters websites I would not expect to find much accuracy in either.

[jassi]

My point is: there is nothing to debate
The Express made an error picked up by Tony Bennett who complained about it then the Express corrected the error.
The End.

Amaral is yesterday's man as far as any investigation is concerned. In fact he has been yesterday's man since October 2007 so why keep banging on about him? There's a civil case involving him which remains "in progress" that is running into its seventh or eighth year which looks like being about as constructive as Jarndyce v Jarndyce but that is hardly relevant to the child's disappearance and determination of what befell her.
As for accuracy vis a vis sceptic websites and supporters websites I would not expect to find much accuracy in either.

Well said. My sentiments exactly

[Mr Gray]

My point is: there is nothing to debate
The Express made an error picked up by Tony Bennett who complained about it then the Express corrected the error.
The End.

Amaral is yesterday's man as far as any investigation is concerned. In fact he has been yesterday's man since October 2007 so why keep banging on about him? There's a civil case involving him which remains "in progress" that is running into its seventh or eighth year which looks like being about as constructive as Jarndyce v Jarndyce but that is hardly relevant to the child's disappearance and determination of what befell her.
As for accuracy vis a vis sceptic websites and supporters websites I would not expect to find much accuracy in either.

the debate is  did the express apologise...if you don't wish to take part fair enough...but that is your second post on this thread

[faithlilly]

Well said. My sentiments exactly

Seconded.

[Mr Gray]

My point is: there is nothing to debate
The Express made an error picked up by Tony Bennett who complained about it then the Express corrected the error.
The End.

Amaral is yesterday's man as far as any investigation is concerned. In fact he has been yesterday's man since October 2007 so why keep banging on about him? There's a civil case involving him which remains "in progress" that is running into its seventh or eighth year which looks like being about as constructive as Jarndyce v Jarndyce but that is hardly relevant to the child's disappearance and determination of what befell her.
As for accuracy vis a vis sceptic websites and supporters websites I would not expect to find much accuracy in either.

I think you will find a lot..lot more accuracy on supporters sites

[ferryman]

My point is: there is nothing to debate
The Express made an error picked up by Tony Bennett who complained about it then the Express corrected the error.
The End.

Amaral is yesterday's man as far as any investigation is concerned. In fact he has been yesterday's man since October 2007 so why keep banging on about him? There's a civil case involving him which remains "in progress" that is running into its seventh or eighth year which looks like being about as constructive as Jarndyce v Jarndyce but that is hardly relevant to the child's disappearance and determination of what befell her.
As for accuracy vis a vis sceptic websites and supporters websites I would not expect to find much accuracy in either.

This thread centres on the trial, not the investigation.

[John]

I considered whether to remove this thread but on balance it did ask a pertinent question, did the Daily Express apologise (see revised opening post).

To answer the question you have to look further into the background of the original complaint which by the way was made by Tony Bennett and not Gonçalo Amaral.  In order to do this unfortunately I must post a copy of the response made by Mr Bennett when asked about the correction later posted by the Daily Express.

My dilemma was this. If I had carried on and asked IPSO to rule, and had not accepted a compromise, it was possible that IPSO might have decided the appeal against me. If you look at their argument, they said that their article was accurate, it was only the headline that was inaccurate. I did not want to risk an adverse ruling from IPSO - that would have been a setback.

I think I can reveal that the Daily Express initially offered a correction in which they did not formally admit that Amaral did not lie in court. 

I was allowed by IPSO to suggest an alternative wording for the correction, and did so.

The Daily Express refused to accept that.

And so it went on, until the moment that the Daily Express formally admitted these crucial words: 'Amaral did not lie'.   

Having secured that formal admission, and after nearly 7 months of correspondence, I decided to accept the wording which was published by the Express a few days ago.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12236-full-ipso-ruling-bennett-v-express-newspapers-published-10-december-2015

Clearly Mr Bennett was not happy that the Express had not gone far enough and made a fuller apology but had to settle for the lesser correction namely...

On the 29th April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover-up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr Amaral had breached the McCann’s right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them”.

This correction also answers another claim oft made on this forum and elsewhere to the effect that the recent court case held in Lisbon was a libel trial when in fact it related to reputation and not defamation.

Happy New Year everyone - Keep smiling!

[Mr Gray]

I considered whether to remove this thread but on balance it did ask a pertinent question, did the Daily Express apologise (see revised opening post).

To answer the question you have to look further into the background of the original complaint which by the way was made by Tony Bennett and not Gonçalo Amaral.  In order to do this unfortunately I must post a copy of the response made by Mr Bennett when asked about the correction later posted by the Daily Express.

Clearly Mr Bennett was not happy that the Express had not gone far enough and made a fuller apology but had to settle for the lesser correction namely...

On the 29th April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover-up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr Amaral had breached the McCann’s right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them”.

This correction also answers another claim oft made on this forum and elsewhere to the effect that the recent court case held in Lisbon was a libel trial when in fact it related to reputation and not defamation.

Happy New Year everyone - Keep smiling!

defamation
ˌdɛfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
"she sued him for defamation"


looks like defamation....I don't understand why posters are unwilling to accept this

[Mr Gray]

the post by bennett...


My dilemma was this. If I had carried on and asked IPSO to rule, and had not accepted a compromise, it was possible that IPSO might have decided the appeal against me. If you look at their argument, they said that their article was accurate, it was only the headline that was inaccurate. I did not want to risk an adverse ruling from IPSO - that would have been a setback.

I think I can reveal that the Daily Express initially offered a correction in which they did not formally admit that Amaral did not lie in court. 

I was allowed by IPSO to suggest an alternative wording for the correction, and did so.

The Daily Express refused to accept that.

And so it went on, until the moment that the Daily Express formally admitted these crucial words: 'Amaral did not lie'.   

Having secured that formal admission, and after nearly 7 months of correspondence, I decided to accept the wording which was published by the Express a few days ago.


the Express correction did not say that.....bennett wrong again

[John]

defamation
ˌdɛfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
"she sued him for defamation"


looks like defamation....I don't understand why posters are unwilling to accept this

The Express chose to use the word reputation based on the Portuguese judgement. The problem is that the Portuguese have a different understanding of the term to that which people in the UK are familiar with.

[John]

the post by bennett...


My dilemma was this. If I had carried on and asked IPSO to rule, and had not accepted a compromise, it was possible that IPSO might have decided the appeal against me. If you look at their argument, they said that their article was accurate, it was only the headline that was inaccurate. I did not want to risk an adverse ruling from IPSO - that would have been a setback.

I think I can reveal that the Daily Express initially offered a correction in which they did not formally admit that Amaral did not lie in court. 

I was allowed by IPSO to suggest an alternative wording for the correction, and did so.

The Daily Express refused to accept that.

And so it went on, until the moment that the Daily Express formally admitted these crucial words: 'Amaral did not lie'.   

Having secured that formal admission, and after nearly 7 months of correspondence, I decided to accept the wording which was published by the Express a few days ago.


the Express correction did not say that.....bennett wrong again

You certainly like to nitpick Dave.  The Express stated, "We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied."

[Mr Gray]

You certainly like to nitpick Dave.  The Express stated, "We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied."

what that means is the court did not determine whether amaral lied or not...so to claim that the determination was "amaral did not lie" is a lie itself. You call it nitpicking....I call it accuracy...and if you are going to accuse popele of serious crimes...as bennett has...then you need to be accurate

[Mr Gray]

if we were to accept that the court said amaral did not lie....then we can take that as the court said amaral told the truth.....if amaral told the truth then his book is true....that is why it is important to be accurate