The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Mm11

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Mm11

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Regist10

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral

View previous topic View next topic Go down

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Empty CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral

Post by sharonl 23.04.19 16:17

Discussion thread here:  https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15553-mr-amaral-ipso-complaint?highlight=amaral

With news from the excellent recent articles from Natasha Donn at the Portugal Resident and Paulo Reis at the Gazeta Digital blog I don't know whether my complaints against The Sun and Daily Mail would be useful or helpful to Goncalo in any way as if any corrective action was to be achieved, Mr Amaral would be most likely to succeed rather than I given my past experiences, and I really hope he sticks it to them.

If these are able to be passed onto either Natasha or Paulo or even the great man himself then they are more than welcome to use my complaints if they wish.

Complaint 1:
I wish to make a formal complaint about this article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1537220673 which was written by Nick Pisa and released on September 17th 2018 at 22:40, then updates on 18th September 2018 at 08:53 although none of the lies or factual inaccuracies have been removed from this possibly libellous article.
 
The main points I wish to complain about are:
1)       “A FUND set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out within weeks — by a huge payout to a disgraced cop”.
2)       “Goncalo Amaral, 58, ludicrously claimed in a book that Madeleine, three, died in Portugal and that her parents covered it up”.
3)       Kate and Gerry, both 50, won a 2015 libel case against him but it was later overturned and Amaral was awarded compo”.
4)       Amaral shamelessly repeated his allegations last week in a glossy magazine interview” — and even claimed: “My family has suffered a lot”.
5)       That could all go if the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld — with the McCann’s paying costs on top”.
6)       “No significant clues have so far been thrown up in the search for Madeleine”.
7)       They face a Euro court showdown” “with a hearing expected later this year”.
 
Yes, no less than 7 points that need correcting in one article is quite disturbing is it not with 2 potentially libellous slurs and 5 factual lies or inaccuracies you might call them (whilst also ignoring them!).
 
Item 1: “payout to a disgraced cop” – This is a libellous slur, personal attack on Goncalo Amaral and completely unfounded.  Using the investigative process that Police use of ‘What, Why, When, Where, How, Who to ascertain exactly why Goncalo Amaral can be labelled as a disgraced cop.  The Sun have stated this as fact, you are allowing them to do so therefore unless both The Sun and yourselves can justify this slur then it needs be removed/corrected asap, no more excuses that because I may not represent Mr Amaral personally you cannot act, your Code of Practice is perfectly clear so abide by it!
What did Mr Amaral do to be labelled a disgraced cop by The Sun?
Why was Mr Amaral labelled a disgraced cop by The Sun?
When was Mr Amaral first denounced as a disgraced cop in order for The Sun to repeat these slurs now?
Where was Mr Amaral first denounced as a disgraced cop, in the UK or Portugal?
How was Mr Amaral first denounced as a disgraced cop?  Was it via letter, email or press conference from the relevant person or body connected to Mr Amaral?
Who declared that Mr Amaral was/is a disgraced cop?  Was it via Portuguese Officials who were involved with or oversaw Mr Amaral, was it via Portuguese courts/judges who were involved in the damages trial that the McCann’s instigated and subsequently lost?
All of these are somewhat irrelevant really when the actual truth of this slur is considered which is that the ‘disgraced cop’ mantra has only ever emanated from the British media on behalf of the McCann’s, a slur which the IPSO has only been happy to endorse but in saying that should The Sun be unable to answer all of the above or provide proof of them then the disgraced cop slur should be forcibly removed and an apology made.
 
Item 2: “ludicrously claimed in a book that Madeleine, three, died in Portugal and that her parents covered it up”. – Once again it is proven fact that Gonaclo’s book is based on the official Police case files of the then gathered evidence, intelligence and information.  An excerpt from the January 2017 Supreme Court verdict which all MSM and IPSO continue to ignore states “The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).”.
Further excerpts from that same ruling –“ It results from the above-mentioned publication that evidence elements and clues it reports to are essentially those referred and documented in the respective criminal investigation”.  “And it results from what has been proven that, besides the facts at stake were abundantly engraved in the investigation and even made public at the instigation of the Republic Attorney General, the respondents are the ones who, taking advantage of an easy access, multiplied interviews and interventions in the national and international media, so that the conclusion is they themselves voluntarily limited their rights to discretion and intimacy of private life”.
The above excerpts are perfectly clear, the book was nothing more than Goncalo’s opinion based on facts and evidence gathered during the official investigation.  The only “ludicrous” thing here is the suggestion by The Sun, endorsed by the IPSO that the proven facts and established evidence of the case files are used “ludicrously” by Goncalo Amaral.  This is a personal baseless attack and should be removed/corrected asap.
 
Item 3 & 5: “Amaral was awarded compo” and That could all go if the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld — with the McCann’s paying costs on top”.
I’ve already been through this with you in a previous complaint and these points yet again are factually incorrect!  The facts are:
·         No financial figure has ever been released in relation to the McCann’s losing their case.
·         The £430,000 figure was the figure the McCann’s were initially awarded, of which Mr Amaral had to pay due to the loss.
·         Subsequent appeals and appeal victories meant that Mr Amaral did not have to pay the £430,000, he was awarded nothing in return! 
·         The McCann’s do have to pay all costs associated with the trial they instigated.
The Supreme Court verdict, last page states this quite clearly “3 - Decision.  Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.  Costs for the appellants”.
Awarded compensation, being awarded £430,000 – All proven lies, completely inaccurate and you should have these removed/corrected asap!  If you need more proof of this you should consult my previous complaints with you.
 
Item 4: Amaral shamelessly repeated his allegations last week in a glossy magazine interview” — and even claimed: “My family has suffered a lot”.  Simple answer here – NO he didn’t!  If this was remotely true then 1) It would have been public knowledge by now, it isn’t.  2) The Sun would have no trouble naming and showing the source, they won’t!  Unless The Sun or yourselves can verify that Goncalo Amaral made such an article in a “glossy magazine” dated from the 10th September 2018 up to the 17thSeptember 2018 then this is yet another fabrication, a lie and needs to be removed/corrected asap!
 
Item 6: “No significant clues have so far been thrown up in the search for Madeleine”.  This must be the 4th time in a week that The Sun have used this line and the same amount of times you have allowed this factually incorrect line to be used.  One must therefore question the reasons for this baseless line being put out to print media and your involvement in the suppression of the facts of this case in allowing it to be used without correction.  I am going to borrow words from alternative social media accounts that I was sent in private messages which will assist me in proving my point, I will also use sources from the Supreme Court of Portugal whose ruling is paramount legally and factually here!
Page 56 of the Supreme Court verdict states:
“Before, however, the relevant facts to be taken into account in deciding the question referred to above shall be listed below :
5. The claimant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007, and the office of the Republic Prosecutor for the Portimão district has opened a criminal investigation
6. The dogs of the British police 'Eddie and Keela' have detected human blood and body odours in the Ocean Club apartment 5-A.
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 claimants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the criminal investigation.
9. In folios 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation, the 10/9/2007, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and in particular the following : Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of 3 May 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 minutes, 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 ;
C) In order to make possible the death of the minor before 22h, a story about checking on the McCann children, as they slept, was invented ;
D) Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter Madeleine McCann ;
E) On this date it seems there is no solid evidence that the death of the minor was not due to a tragic accident;
F) Given what has been confirmed so far, everything indicates that the McCann couple, as self-defence, does not want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the body, existing a high probability
that the same was removed from the place where it was originally disposed of. This situation is likely to raise questions about the circumstances in which occurred the death of the minor.
Thus we suggest that autos be delivered to the prosecutor of Lagos aiming :
G) A possible new interrogation of assisted witnesses Kate McCann and Gerald McCann ;
H) Evaluate the adequate measure of constraint to be applied in the case (page 2601).
 
The aforementioned text mentions “facts to be taken into account”!  Yes FACTS, not hearsay, conjecture or speculation but facts based on the gathering of intelligence and evidence.   But please allow me to summarise this even more:
if a Chief Inspector concludes Madeleine #mccann died in her
parents apartment, who are complicit in covering it up and supports this with
evidence/proven facts as established in court, does that really sound like no
clue of what happened”!

 
So it really is quite simple, this line of no clue of what happened is a pure lie and should be removed asap.  It’s of no surprise to me that I hear you’ve already been alerted to this factual inaccuracy but have yet again failed (or much more likely refused) to act in accordance with your own Code of Practice.
So there is more than a clue of what has happened to little Madeleine, in the fundamental principles in the appealed arcordao point 9 from above, the Tavares De Almeida report which can be found here http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm is listed as “facts which are considered proven”, so a lot more than a clue of what happened wouldn’t you say?!
 
Item 7: They face a Euro court showdown” “with a hearing expected later this year”.
This is implying that the McCann’s V Amaral is being taken to the ECHR, of which we are told papers have been filed but this factually incorrect as the Supreme Court verdict is final and binding.  The ECHR is at pains to state “"If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgement given by the domestic courts?  No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court."  Furthermore 
"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?  The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts (the Supreme Court in Lisbon being one of these); it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions”.

So there will be no showdown between Mr Amaral and the McCann’s as The Sun’s article implies.  Additionally The Sun has absolutely no way of knowing whether “further papers have been filed”, the progress of such an application if it as ever made etc.  It is all speculation something of which your Code of Practice is supposed to stop being put out by the print media!
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 7599
Activity : 10117
Likes received : 1371
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Empty Re: CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral

Post by sharonl 23.04.19 16:18

Complaint 2:
I wish to make a formal complaint regarding this article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7319265/madeleine-mccann-donations-dried-up/
It contains several factual inaccuracies and pure lies which are in contravention of your Code of Practice, many of which are the same lies and factual inaccuracies that have been told previously over the past week and have yet to be removed, corrected or even apologised for.

In this article the following are factually inaccurate to be included for distribution to the British public:
1) "The couple were also subjected to baseless yet frenzied social media allegations of involvement in their daughter's death".  
2) "The McCann's are embroiled in a row with Goncalo Amaral".
3) "they face having to pay Amaral £430,000 in damages, plus costs".
4) "just over £65,000 was spent on fees for the McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte, to cover the several years it took to lodge a case in the ECHR in Strasbourg, France".
5) "The legal action is aimed at overturning a Portuguese Supreme Court ruling".

Point 1 - They are not "baseless allegations".  People are repeating information gleaned from thousands of Portuguese legal documents.  Again for this complaint I refer you and The Sun to page 56 of the Supreme Court ruling which states...
“Before, however, the relevant facts to be taken into account in deciding the question referred to above shall be listed below :
5. The claimant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007, and the office of the Republic Prosecutor for the Portimão district has opened a criminal investigation
6. The dogs of the British police 'Eddie and Keela' have detected human blood and body odours in the Ocean Club apartment 5-A.
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 claimants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the criminal investigation.
9. In folios 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation, the 10/9/2007, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and in particular the following : Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of 3 May 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 minutes, 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 ;
C) In order to make possible the death of the minor before 22h, a story about checking on the McCann children, as they slept, was invented ;
D) Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter Madeleine McCann ;
E) On this date it seems there is no solid evidence that the death of the minor was not due to a tragic accident;
F) Given what has been confirmed so far, everything indicates that the McCann couple, as self-defence, does not want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the body, existing a high probability
that the same was removed from the place where it was originally disposed of. This situation is likely to raise questions about the circumstances in which occurred the death of the minor.
Thus we suggest that autos be delivered to the prosecutor of Lagos aiming :
G) A possible new interrogation of assisted witnesses Kate McCann and Gerald McCann ;
H) Evaluate the adequate measure of constraint to be applied in the case (page 2601).
 
The aforementioned text mentions “facts to be taken into account”!  Yes FACTS, not hearsay, conjecture or speculation but facts based on the gathering of intelligence and evidence.   
Additionally in support of this The Sun have stated this in this article as they have in many other articles over the years "Madeleine and her younger twin siblings had been left sleeping alone in their beds while Kate the McCann's were dining in a nearby tapas restaurant with pals".  This is printed as fact and one must assume that this information has come from the statements of the McCann's in order to print this as fact.  Such statements are found in the official police files of the Portuguese police.  So if The Sun or yourselves are going to allow the police files to be a beacon of fact in making statements like these which support the McCann's version of events then the rest of those same police files are equally as valid such as the contents of the Tavares de Almeida (Chief Inspector)  report as listed above, neither you nor The Sun can have it both ways!  
The ludicrous implication that all of this is "baseless" is wholly inaccurate and a complete lie, hence it should be corrected and an apology made.  If you think you know better than the Portuguese Supreme Court then please attempt to prove them wrong, otherwise this has to removed.


Point 2 - The McCann's are not embroiled in any row with Goncalo Amaral.  The damages trial that the McCann's instigated is over, it has ran its course, it is finished, over, end of.  Mr Amaral won that fight and in the highest court in Portugal.  Any case that may be heard at the ECHR has to be against the state of Portugal, not Mr Amaral!  As we can see again, The Sun is creating scenarios that simply doesn't exist - a lie, a fabrication which should be corrected and an apology made.


Point 3 - I’ve already been through this with you in a previous complaint and these points yet again are factually incorrect!  The facts are:
·         No financial figure has ever been released in relation to the McCann’s losing their case.
·         The £430,000 figure was the figure the McCann’s were initially awarded, of which Mr Amaral had to pay due to the loss.
·         Subsequent appeals and appeal victories meant that Mr Amaral did not have to pay the £430,000, he was awarded nothing in return! 
·         The McCann’s do have to pay all costs associated with the trial they instigated.
The Supreme Court verdict, last page states this quite clearly “3 - Decision.  Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.  Costs for the appellants”.
Awarded compensation, being awarded £430,000, having to pay Amaral £430,000 – All proven lies, completely inaccurate and you should have these removed/corrected asap!  If you need more proof of this you should consult my previous complaints with you.


Point 4 - The Sun are now claiming that the McCann's and their lawyer have spent years preparing a case and associated documents to lodge with the ECHR when in fact this has not been the case has it?!  It has been a case of going through various courts in Portugal ultimately ending up at the Supreme Court where the McCann's lost and also had their rapid fire 'frivolity' complaint thrown out pronto too which led to them allegedly trying to go to the ECHR.  This implication is misleading and should be corrected for the sake of the truth and for clarification.


Point 5 - Again I have already covered this factual inaccuracy.  The ECHR is at pains to state “"If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to comply with the final judgement given by the domestic courts?  No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court."  Furthermore "What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?  The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts (the Supreme Court in Lisbon being one of these); it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions”.
So by going to the ECHR the McCann's cannot overturn the Supreme Court ruling, that is a fact, time to correct this lie.


In support of this complaint I again include this link http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-accused-of-trailing-fake-mccann-stories-to-%E2%80%9Cpressure-the-european-court%E2%80%9D and also this blog http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/faking-it_18.html


Time to stop the fake news articles and propaganda.




After sending this I have now come to see that the subject matter in point 4 has come from the documents from the last set of accounts from the Find Madeleine Fund, it is almost copied word for word.
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 7599
Activity : 10117
Likes received : 1371
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Empty Re: CMOMM Member Phil Beddoe IPSO complaint on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral

Post by sharonl 23.04.19 16:18

The usual response:

 
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “MADDIE: THE LAST CHANCE”, published by The Sun on 18 September 2018.
 
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive staff reviews it to ensure that the issues raised fall within our remit, and represent a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint.
 
You said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it referred to Goncalo Amaral as a “disgraced cop”. You said that this characterisation was made without any justification and was simply a personal attacked on Mr Amaral.
 
IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we will need to consider the position of the party most closely involved.
 
In this instance, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Mr Amaral; specifically the characterisations that he is a “disgraced cop.” It would not be appropriate or possible for IPSO to investigate and publicly rule on a complaint that directly related to Mr Amaral and his conduct without his knowledge and consent. As such, we declined to consider this aspect of your complaint further.
 
You also said there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Amaral had given an interview to a magazine, as you had not been able to find this article. However, your position is based on speculation, and therefore does not raise a possible breach of Clause 1. Moreover, it would be for Mr Amaral to complain if he thought this was inaccurate.
 
You have also said that the article was inaccurate because you disagree with the publication’s description of Mr Amaral’s claims as “ludicrous.” The Editors’ Code of Practice doesn’t address issues of bias. It makes clear the press has the right to be partisan, to give its own opinion and to campaign, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. While we note that you disagree with it, this was the publication’s characterisation of the claims made in Mr Amaral’s book; which they were entitled to publish. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this point.
 
You also said the article was defamatory and libellous to Mr Amaral. We noted that these are legal matters; IPSO does not enforce the law, but the Editors’ Code of Practice.
 
You have also said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because the figure given in the publication was speculative. However, you are not disputing that £430,000 was the figure paid to the McCanns; that the McCanns may need to pay the money back if they were to loss their appeal or that the money would come out of the investigation’s fund. The article accurately reported these figures and you have not provided any basis as to why it is inaccurate. Therefore, there has been no possible breach of Clause 1.
 
You have also said that the claim that there has been “no significant clues” in the search for Madeleine, was inaccurate. However, we considered the statement was not significantly misleading in light of the fact that Madeline McCann is still missing, the police are still appealing for information and nobody is in custody for Madeline’s disappearance.  Therefore there has been no possible breach of Clause 1.
 
You have also said that the article breached Clause 1 (accuracy) because it referred to a “Euro court showdown,” which you believe gives the misleading impression that the ECHR will be able to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. However, referring to a “showdown” was not misleading in the way that you have suggested. The newspaper was entitled to characterise a possible upcoming court appearance by the parties as a “showdown.”  Therefore there has been no possible breach of Clause 1.
 
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision not to take forward your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next 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 seven days after the date of this email.
 
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised.
 
Best wishes,
 
Jonathan Harris
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 7599
Activity : 10117
Likes received : 1371
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum