Complaint correspondence to Independent Press Standards Organisation re: Mail and Sun and their use of the word "trolls" for describing McCann-sceptics

Herewith a run of correspondence from CMOMM to the IPSO which relates to the media calling us all "trolls" / "vile trolls".




Complaint
Material published in print and/or online 
Complaint details
Name of publication(s): 
1. Daily Mail
Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese detective who wrote a book claiming the McCanns covered up Madeleine's death - and even British police donated Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589566/Web-trolls-raise-50-000-Portuguese-policeman-wrote-book-claiming-McCanns-killed-daughter-Madeleine., 

date of article 13/05/2016
Publication contacted
URL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589566/Web-trolls-raise-50-000-Portuguese-policeman-wrote-book-claiming-McCanns-killed-daughter-Madeleine.html

Clause(s) breached:
1 Accuracy
I am one of the persons who donated money for the Legal costs of the defence of Dr Amaral. HIs own assets had been 'frozen' in a clear attempt to prevent his being properly defended. It is clear from the recent decision in the Supreme Court of Portugal that he was legally entitled to pursue the course of conduct he had chosen. To describe me, and others who donated in this way as "Trolls" it therefore inaccurate, as well as Defamatory


Name of publication(s):
The Sun
Sick Brit trolls pay £50k to Portuguese cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of lying about daughter’s abduction, date of article 24/04/2016
Publication contacted
URL
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1142146/sick-brit-trolls-pay-50k-to-portuguese-cop-who-accused-madeleine-mccanns-parents-of-lying-about-daughters-abduction/

Clause(s) breached:
1 Accuracy


I am one of the persons who donated money for the Legal costs of the defence of Dr Amaral. HIs own assets had been 'frozen' in a clear attempt to prevent his being properly defended. It is clear from the recent decision in the Supreme Court of Portugal that he was legally entitled to pursue the course of conduct he had chosen. To describe me, and others who donated in this way as "SICK Trolls" it therefore inaccurate, as well as Defamatory




 

Lauren Hay
Systems Handler


IPSO
Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London
EC4M 7LG
Tel: 0300 123 2220
Website: www.ipso.co.uk





Lauren Hay (lauren.hay@ipso.co.uk);
Dear Ms Hay,


IPSO:   "01152-17"


Thank you for your prompt reply.
I understand the time limits, and was recently made aware that the limit for online versions was longer than for print.
In both the cases referred to the online versions are still accessible using the original links, and still contain the same defamatory words.

My reason for not making a formal complaint earlier may be summed up very simply.
LACK OF TRUST

Without going into details about this extraordinary case and the way the main stream media have uncritically followed the line dictated to them it has been clear that raising what to many are obvious questions (about shutters, dogs, changes in story, forgery of photos, planted stories, and so on) was not going to be permitted, and anyone who sought to pursue these lines of enquiry would be publicly named as a "Troll" in the National press.
You will be aware that Martin Brunt, of Sky news, pursuing a "Dossier" provided by the McCann family, hounded a pensioner to her suicide using this pretext.

I believe there may be legal proceedings pending, and it would be wrong to comment further on that egregious episode.

Only recently - 31st January 2017 - has the Supreme Court of Portugal stated, explicitly, that Dr Amaral was always within his legal right to publish the book raising his concerns
They added, in case you are not aware of the judgment, [ in translation]
  p.70
“And let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process. 

and at p. 66
As a matter of fact, the appellants were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the same criminal investigation (n°8 of the proven facts).
This implies that emerged a well-founded suspicion they had committed crime or crimes (cf. art. 58° and 59° of the CPP).
It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually closed, in particular because none of the indications which led to the constitution of the appellants as arguidos was subsequently confirmed or consolidated (n°15 of the proven facts).
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

Only armed with this unequivocal statement from the Supreme Court, can we be more sure we may be safe from the physical hounding meted out to the late Brenda Leyland by Sky,   or to continuation of the constant accusation of "Troll" directed towards anyone of an independent and enquiring mind.

For that reason I was not prepared to complain earlier, but do so now that even the main stream media have not been able totally to ignore the judgement 

I trust you will understand.

Yours sincerely
REDACTED


* * * * * * * * 
The Transcript and its translation may be found at . http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm




 
Todd Stammers
Systems Handler







Dear Mr Stammers,


This correspondence is assuming a somewhat surreal if not Kafkaesque quality.


I had assumed that you, the ultimate arbiters of what was and was not permissible in the Press, would have a clear and accepted definition of the things upon which you are required to adjudicate.   I had not realised that I would be called upon to provide my own.


But I repeat, in case the message has been lost, that so far as I remember, those who described themselves as “Trolls" on the crowd funding site, did so in an entirely ironic fashion, known that the gutter press were so describing donors and those who asked 'difficult’ questions, or accused the Press of failing in their duty to investigate and report impartially.    Your colleagues in Paris did something similar after the atrocity at the Charlie Hebdo office. It is called defiance and solidarity.
The Daily Mail’s attempt to deflect from their use of that term is disingenuous and unworthy, but expected.


I have found three useful sources.


A http://www.urbandictionary.com

Troll
1 One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
2 One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers.


B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.
This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. [my emphasis]   For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."
Usage
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterise a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.


C https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894
lists no fewer than ten different types and definitions.


In any event, supporting a colleague financially to allow him properly to defend himself in a Court of law, - despite the cruel and cynical attempt by his accusers to prevent this - holding an opinion based on the known facts, even before the Supreme Court endorsed it - posing ‘difficult’ questions, or offering alternative theories do not, in my submission, fit any of the accepted definitions.


The addition of the adjective VILE by The Sun is on any test ad hominem abuse.


I hope this is of assistance


Yours sincerely
REDACTED



From: Abigail Tuitt
Sent: 21 February 2017 15:13
To: redacted
Cc: ombudsman@the-sun.co.uk; managingeditor@dailymail.co.uk
Subject: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference [IPSO: #01152-17,01153-17#]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cc Daily Mail
     The Sun


Abigail Tuitt
Complaints Officer





Dear Ms Tuitt,

Thank you for your email outlining the decision.
I have to say that this comes as no surprise.

Given that no one in the Press Industry nor its regulators seems to believe that the hounding of the late Brenda Leyland to her death by Martin Brunt and Sky News was in any way unacceptable, being open abused as a "troll" is unlikely to be seen as anything other than perfectly normal - at least from that end of the journalistic spectrum.

I note that both papers have dramatically changed their approach to this case since the decision in the Supreme Court in Portugal, and are now at last beginning to print some factual information.

Thank you for your time
Yours sincerely
REDACTED

In circumstances where the articles clarified the precise nature of the conduct, the newspapers were entitled to characterise the donors as “trolls”

Absolutely outrageous.

I would ask for a justification of that statement.

They called all the people who donated to the fund trolls.

How so and what was the "precise nature" of the conduct of all the donators?

I've just edited the post to add a bit more in the middle, so you'll all have to go back and read it again!

This complaint was sent to IPSO by another CMOMM member last June, so you can see their replies are pretty standard - and have done absolutely nothing about it since then, despite saying they "uphold the highest standards of journalism".

'Dear Simon,

Clauses to be considered under complaint. Please see below these for further detail, in the shape of prior correspondence with Philippa Kennedy, The Sun Ombudsman. I will also paste again my correspondence with Mrs Kennedy, as I am unsure whether it was chopped off after your last email:

1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
v) 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.

This article describes anyone who helped with Goncalo Amaral's legal costs as 'trolls'. It is not possible to determine how many 'trolls' existed in this group, if any at all. As a recent, balanced Daily Mail article (linked in correspondence below) showed, there are perfectly normal people, well meaning, who donated to his fund. Even MET employees. It is misleading, disingenuous and irresponsible to label the group in its entirety this way.

No effort is made to determine the number of 'trolls' in the group, and it could be described as 'aggressive conjecture/comment'. It fails to fall under 'comment' because it is not balanced. Yet there's no attempt to make this distinction clear.

If this pertained to a religious group, and all were labelled as fanatics or terrorists, it would be called hate speech. I don't see a grey area here.

Clause 1. v) is somewhat a fuzzy one. It can be fairly said that the case AGAINST Goncalo Amaral related to the claim that his publication was defamatory towards the McCann family. He won his appeal, and Philippa Kennedy clearly and in certain terms asserts that the paper is totally behind the McCann family (unbiased journalism?).

This means they were party to supporting the McCanns, and defaming Mr. Amaral, who again, won his appeal. I did not spot any hint of acknowledgement, and his court win is minimised as much as possible in lieu of throwing around the word 'troll'.

I referred to this piece as 'Goebbelian' and the following reply from Mrs. Kennedy sums that up. I realised that papers are always going to have agendas, but the fascistic attitude shown here is very alarming. Surely maligning groups of fellow Britons, dehumanising them with a term like 'troll', with zero investigative attempt to corroborate said term, is abhorrent. The casual reader won't realise it, and will potentially read it and form an opinion that is not based on reality. This is irresponsible.

Unbalanced is the kindest word I could tag the article with.



- Ben



Prior correspondence:



Hi Philippa,

Thanks for the reply. As regards the email address you didn't recognise, that was an automated reply when I filled out my IPSO complaint on The Sun's website.

With regards to the rationale of blanket labelling anyone who doesn't believe the McCann's as trolls, I am very surprised to see such brazen fervor in supporting a single narrative, especially with what the paper is dealing with after Hillsborough. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can look up the police files online, and come to their own conclusions - whether it supports one narrative or another.

I'm sure you can appreciate, this Goebbelian narrative pushing discourages people from thinking for themselves, and in turn slows progress. The Sun choosing to support the McCanns is one thing, but campaigning against those who think for themselves is highly irresponsible. As my original complaint stated, I am well aware that trolls exist online. I have seen them on both sides (follow the hashtag #mccann on Twitter for a little while and you will see).

Can you really substantiate labelling an entire group of people with one negative word? This is akin to hate speech, or blanket labelling a religion as evil because they believe a different book. Your reply itself says 'SOME', not 'all'. But the article makes no attempt to make that distinction.

The reply also contradicts itself, by first saying that the Sun 'did not report that Madeleine was abducted' but then saying that it 'supports the McCann's version of events'.

I would point you to a recent article written by the Daily Mail online. In this article the journalists took the time to visit people who had donated to GA's fund, find out who they were, what their perspective was, and did not refer to them simply as trolls. This is at least balanced journalism. The Mail still supports the McCanns and used the word 'troll' in their article, but at least in the bulk of the article made effort to make it clear that not everyone involved was a 'troll' - and even mentioned the policemen who donated (MET employees are also trolls by this 'Sun narrative').

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589566/Web-trolls-raise-50-000-Portuguese-policeman-wrote-book-claiming-McCanns-killed-daughter-Madeleine.html

I would really appreciate a fair appraisal of this issue as I don't feel this response addressed it whatsoever.

Regards,

- Ben'





'Dear Mr Salmon,

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Sick Brit trolls pay £50k to Portuguese cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of lying about daughter’s abduction”, published by The Sun on 24 April 2016.

On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive staff reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and represents a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.

You complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that it was inaccurate of the article to refer to individuals who have contributed towards covering the legal costs of Goncalo Amaral as “trolls”. We note that this was the newspaper’s characterisation of the donors, representing its opinion that some of the donors were members of an anti McCann ‘fan club’”, which was made clear in the article.

The newspaper was entitled to characterise the support of Mr Amaral in this manner and in doing so did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1. You complained under Clause 1 that it was inaccurate for the article to report that Goncalo Amaral accused the McCann’s of lying about their daughter’s abduction because his book simply presented information included in police case files that were already publicly accessible.

The terms of Clause 1 (i) state that the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. We note that the article reported that “Amaral made a fortune from The Truth of the Lie, a 2008 book containing the claims”. In circumstances where Mr Amaral attributed his name to a book entitled The Truth of the Lie which included claims that the McCann’s had lied about their daughter’s abduction, we did not consider the article to be inaccurate in the way that you suggest. As such we could not consider your complaint as a possible breach of Clause 1.

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed.

Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.


Best wishes,

Isabel Gillen-Smith

Cc The Sun Isabel Gillen-Smith Complaints Officer'

What a poor response and terrible excuse for human beings arbitrate the press.

Sadly they show themselves up even more in the complaint that he made a fortune out of the  the mccann's with the response that his accusations against them were in the book the truth of the lie which sold many copies, they didn't even have the decency to do a check which would take less than 30 mins to look at the transcripts of the trial which shows exactly how many books were sold and on what basis of percentage he was paid for each one on an ascending scale, had they done so, they would have been able to work out his share of the total is about 90,000 euros, I don't think anyone would consider that a small fortune from any source especially when you are being sued for £1million.

Of course 'troll' is just one of several words that have been hijacked by the politically correct liberal elite to stifle open comment & debate.

Anyone who voted for Brexit is described as a xenophobe or 'Little Englander'.

Anyone who doesn't want an infuux of thousands of asylum seekers is described as facist or racist.

Troll is used to descibe anyone whose opinion does not follow the party line.

When these words are used it's a sure sign that those on the other side of the argument feel that they are losing.

Any 'mention' of the 'serving/ex' Metropolitan Police Officers, who donated £1,000 towards GA's lawyer's 'libel appeal fund', naming/labeling THEM, as 'Sick British Trolls/ vile trolls' in the above 'articles'?

Page 19
Both claimants (here appellants) lodged an appeal for reviewing that acórdão   (note : to avoid confusion, this word always designates the decision of the Appeal Court).
Provided allegations and gathered the legal visas, it's up to deciding.
2 – Fundamental principles
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann. (11)
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9.  On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Taking into account all that was presented in the autos, it results that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;
B) A simulation of abduction took place ;



Based on the above, how can TM possibly threaten anyone with libel for repeating the claims in Dr Amaral's book/Doc? It is all there clear as day in the judgement of a European Union member's Supreme Court.

Nobody who repeats any of the above can be accused of being a 'troll'.

Why on earth isn't this reported in any of the mainstream media?
I really despair sometimes...

mootle wrote:Page 19
Both claimants (here appellants) lodged an appeal for reviewing that acórdão   (note : to avoid confusion, this word always designates the decision of the Appeal Court).
Provided allegations and gathered the legal visas, it's up to deciding.
2 – Fundamental principles
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.
2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of  Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.
4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann. (11)
5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.
8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.
9.  On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :
"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )
Taking into account all that was presented in the autos, it results that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;
B) A simulation of abduction took place ;



Based on the above, how can TM possibly threaten anyone with libel for repeating the claims in Dr Amaral's book/Doc? It is all there clear as day in the judgement of a European Union member's Supreme Court.

Nobody who repeats any of the above can be accused of being a 'troll'.

Why on earth isn't this reported in any of the mainstream media?
I really despair sometimes...

Clicking on the (11) makes good reading.