[Discussion] Michael Jackson Slandered By The Mirror / New assult Pg 38

Yes it is VERY important to contact the Press Complaints Commission in this case.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html


The PCC have very strict guidelines, and specific parts of the Mirror and Mail articles are so easy to disprove that it's worth a shot.


I have contacted the PCC about these articles in two complaints - one for the Mail and one for the second Mirror article. I will later file a complaint about the first Mirror article but haven't had chance yet.


The newspapers state explicitly that the FBI ceased their investigation into the abuse of two mexican boys because MJ was meeting the president. The Mail even says "the FBI openly admits" to the reason.


The newspaper reports cite the FBI files as their source, yet the FBI files say no such thing. This is fact.


The FBI files state that somebody writing a book alleged an investigation took place, and provided the reason as reported in the newspapers. The FBI file also says that the FBI writer could NOT find records of the investigation when they searched for it.


Clearly there is no evidence that the FBI ever investigated abuse against two Mexican boys(!), so reporting that it happened as fact is inacurate.
The FBI do not make claims as to why the investigation (that they haven't been able to find any record of) was dropped. To say the FBI files provide a reason for dropping the investigation is inaccurate.
The reports also say that the FBI files detail the telephone conversation to Terry George. This one's more of a long shot, but in my opinion the FBI file does NOT detail the telephone conversation at all - it only provide newspaper snippets taken from tabloid reports, without any comment on the content.

Kudos to you!!! That's great you took the time to do it. Have you heard back from anyone yet? At first I got an automated reply over the weekend, but to my surprise this morning, I received a personal email from an employee of that agency telling me about the new investigation being launched.

The more infomation we give them exposing how they are twisting their stories, and flat out lies, the better.
 
Paris78;3863783 said:
Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 45m

“@13june2005: @tajjackson3 @TheMJAP @CEThomson here is the actual page to make the complaint - just type and click http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html …”

Taj Jackson‏@tajjackson3

“@TheMJAP: @CEThomson @thesundaypeople It's sad that British law doesn't protect the family of the deceased.

If every fan took the time to do this, it could have a huge impact on preventing future false stories and force them into a public printed apology. Because I totally believe another attack will be coming this Sunday (July 14th).

Just make sure you file a seperate complaint for each UK article (2 from the Mirror and 2 from the Daily Mail.)
 
Last edited:
Charles Thomson on the PCC, I feel hopeless :

@CEThomson: @tajjackson3 @13june2005 @TheMJAP Fans have tried to use it before and the PCC has fobbed them off.
 
Charles told Taj however:

@tajjackson3 @13june2005 @TheMJAP But you, Taj, as a family member, can complain and they will be forced to launch an investigation.

Taj answer:

@CEThomson @13june2005 @TheMJAP Tell me how and what to do and I will do it. Enough is enough. These people need to pay for their lies.

The ONLY JACKSON who's willing to do something! Bravo Taj! :clapping:
 
Charles told Taj however:

@tajjackson3 @13june2005 @TheMJAP But you, Taj, as a family member, can complain and they will be forced to launch an investigation.

Taj answer:

@CEThomson @13june2005 @TheMJAP Tell me how and what to do and I will do it. Enough is enough. These people need to pay for their lies.

The ONLY JACKSON who's willing to do something! Bravo Taj! :clapping:

Good for him!!!:D

So, Charles feels the fans efforts are fruitless. He's probably right. But, I don't give up so easy.:evil:
 
^^Bombard them with complains, that's a good idea... :she_devil: I was filling mine when I when I read those tweets, so I have the intention to send it.
 
Just keep at it and maybe they'll eventually get sick of it and do something. I've got the PCC bookmarked!

And thank goodness for Taj.... yay, go kick some butt!


Taj Jackson@tajjackson32h
@CEThomson Why is the @thesundaypeople able to print such lies and get away with it? #tabloidtrash #paidtolie #followthemoneytrail

Retweetet von Charles Thomson
 
I personally think journalists need to be licensed--so many professions require licenses--this means they have training and have been certified--such as teachers, nurses, etc. IMO the irresponsibility of the "anyone can be a journalist" attitude, along with the 'self-policing' attitude has got to go. Journalists need to have verified, certified training including a course in ethics, accountability, objectivity, etc.

Re the Mann Act--it could have been raised as you say re Jordan Chandler as well as the train journey. The prosecutors wanted the FBI to indict MJ on charges of the Mann Act but the FBI declined.

I hope that Operation Weeting will reconsider letting Desborough off the hook given his outrageous lies. His co-author David Gardner is a free-lance journalist based in LA.

BTW, Jeff Cohen, who wrote the "Cable News Confidential" book in 06 outlining corruption in corporate media founded a group called FAIR, an acronym for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

www.fair.org
 
Interesting connection of Howard Mann and Desborough:

"The Desborough - Mann Connection


As one delves into the Sunday People's article, we realize the connections are more interconnected than we thought. The Sunday People published a story a few days ago, which claimed that they were in possession of unseen "FBI files" that alleged Jackson molested dozens of boys and paid them settlement money in order to keep them quiet. Even though the story has been unequivocally fabricated and embellished, only Roger Friedman and Charles Thomson have written articles disproving the lies of the Sunday People.



As you can see above, the article was co-written by tabloid "journalists" James Desborough and David Gardner. In the four years since Michael Jackson died, Desborough has written several pieces for the now defunct UK tabloid, News of the World. Among these pieces are:

1. LaToya's interview: Michael Was Murdered
2. Joe Jackson Blames Katherine Jackson for Michael's Death
3. Michael's Deathbed Photos and Secret Funeral
4. Jackson was Dead an Hour Before Paramedics Arrived
5. MJ Feared He Had Heart Condition, Brain Tumor and Cancer
6. Michael Jackson Leaves His Kids More Than $33 Million In His Will (Includes trust documents)

The articles that would perk our interest are the death bed photos and the trust documents. Clearly, these documents would only be leaked by a Jackson family member, one of their attorneys or business associates.

@Ivy_4MJ and I were talking about it, and she said that Howard Mann mentioned in a deposition that he used a News of the World source. When she dug up the document, lo and behold this is what he said under oath:



Howard Mann's connection to News of the World is James Desborough, the very same "journalist" who wrote the fake FBI story.

Some fans will remember that Howard Mann went into a contractual agreement with Katherine Jackson shortly after Michael died. Katherine's book Never Can Say Goodbye, Michael's children's appearance on Good Morning America and a website dedicated to Michael and his music were all part of that agreement.

However, the executors of Michael's Estate sued Howard Mann, citing that Mann was infringing on Jackson's intellectual property, which the Estate exclusively owns. You can read about the Estate's lawsuit against Mann here. For another blog about Mann, click here,

The majority of Jackson's fans protested Howard Mann and his questionable dealings with Katherine Jackson. A twitterthon was held in protest of Mann, and the image below shows that MJ fans clearly disliked and disapproved of Mann.



The majority of Michael's fans feel there is no coincidence that the Sunday People published this libelous article on the very same day as the premiere of Jackson's new Cirque du Soleil show, MJ ONE. And while there is no definitive proof that Howard Mann sought to sabotage the Estate by selling this story to the tabloids along with Paul Baressi, it does show us that there is a link between journalist James Desborough and Howard Mann. Both should keep in mind that Jackson's fans will research until we have reached every avenue in order to preserve his legacy.
Posted by Michael Jackson: And Justice for Some at 11:25 PM"

http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-desborough-mann-connection.html

In his deposition, Mann says he 'worked extensively' with Desborough.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who falsely accuses someone of child molestation needs to be thrown in jail. It disgusts me how people can throw out these disgusting false allegations and then when they are proven liars there is no consequence for their actions.
 
Exactly. Especially considering some of the graphic details they make up - it makes you wonder what goes on in the sick minds of theirs.
 
The sickos are at it again today, at the Daily Mail. A new article they just posted. Are these attacks going to come daily now?:angry: They are outright liars. Now they are trying to compare him to the likes of Jimmy Savile. I can't believe this. :(

Does anyone know who this Craig Brown is???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How wily ***** bamboozled Ron and Nancy
By Craig Brown
PUBLISHED: 17:32 EST, 8 July 2013 | UPDATED: 18:15 EST, 8 July 2013


Documents just released under the Freedom of Information Act show the FBI dropped an investigation into claims that Michael Jackson was abusing two Mexican children


Glamour craves power; power craves glamour. This is why celebrities and politicians like to rub shoulders, and this, too, is why their meetings so often end in tears.

Documents just released under the Freedom of Information Act show the FBI dropped an investigation into claims that Michael Jackson was abusing two Mexican children.

In May 1984 Jackson was all set to receive an honour at the White House, and it was felt that such an investigation could prove an embarrassment to President Reagan. So the investigation was abandoned and Jackson’s visit to the White House (pictured) went ahead.

There have been a number of strange collisions between presidents and pop stars, but this remains one of the oddest of all.

I first became intrigued by it when I was researching my book about remarkable meetings, One On One. This latest nugget of information offers us another piece of a most peculiar jigsaw.

Unusually, the presidential honour had been initiated not by the White House, but by its recipient.

Some months before, Jackson had been asked to donate his song Beat It as background music for a government advertisement against drink-driving.

Jackson was notoriously money-minded and image-conscious, so his immediate reaction was to say no. But then he saw how he could work it to his advantage.

‘You know what?’ he told his lawyer, John Branca. ‘If I can get some kind of an award from the White House, then I can give them the song. How about that?’

He added that he wanted to be on a stage at the White House with President Reagan. ‘And I sure want to meet Nancy.’


This all sounds perfectly sweet and fluffy. But under the guise of eccentricity, Michael Jackson was extremely wily, cultivating the powerful with the same precision he applied to cultivating children. In this respect, he was much like Britain’s own Sir Jimmy Savile, friend of princes and prime ministers.

So it is worth asking this question: might Jackson have arranged this meeting with President Reagan knowing full well that it would forestall the FBI investigation into his crimes?

Presidents tend to be old and unpopular, so they are always happy to be pictured with the young and popular. Within a matter of days, the White House had replied to the singer’s lawyer with an offer.


If Michael Jackson came to the White House, the President would present him with a special humanitarian award for his work against drink and drugs — and Nancy would be there to welcome him, too.

So at 11am on May 14, 1984, the President, wearing a navy blue suit, and the First Lady, wearing a white Adolfo suit, stood on a special platform on the South Lawn to greet Michael Jackson, who was wearing a military jacket with sequins, plus floppy gold epaulettes and a gold sash, a single white glove checkered with rhinestones, large dark glasses and full stage make-up.

Their meeting had peculiar echoes of a meeting that took place at the White House in 1970 between President Nixon and Elvis Presley.

Presley — also in full make-up, and drugged up to the eyeballs — had arrived wearing a large brass-buttoned Edwardian jacket over a purple velvet tunic with matching trousers, held up by a vast gold belt.

After an awkward conversation — ‘You dress kind of strange, don’t you?’ said Nixon, to which Elvis replied: ‘You have your show and I have mine’ — Elvis had asked the President for a Special Agent badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and a bemused President Nixon had felt obliged to present him with one.

Fourteen years later, President Reagan must have felt similarly cornered. ‘Michael Jackson is taking time to lead the fight against alcohol and drug abuse,’ he said, adding that he was ‘proof of what a young person can accomplish free of drink or drug abuse’.

Oddly enough, Jackson’s autopsy 25 years later would reveal traces in his blood of lidocaine, diazepam, nordiazepam, lorazepam, midazolam, propofol and ephedrine.

After the award ceremony, Jackson was ushered into the White House, where he was horrified to find that the Diplomatic Reception Room was full of adults.

He consequently turned on his heels, ran down the hall, and locked himself in a lavatory. ‘They said there would be kids. But those aren’t kids!’ he protested through the door to his manager.

White House officials rushed around, bundling a handful of children into the Roosevelt Room, and Jackson finally agreed to come out.

‘It’s all so peculiar, really. A boy who looks just like a girl, who whispers when he speaks, wears a glove on one hand and sunglasses all the time. I just don’t know what to make of it,’ whispered Nancy Reagan to a member of the Jackson entourage.

‘Listen, you don’t know the half of it,’ he replied.

*** Use this link to file your complainthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ROWN-How-wily-*****-bamboozled-Ron-Nancy.html
 
The more we decide to take action, the harder they attack or what. This article made realize we need to send more complains to the PCC to force them to write the truth or apology. :angry:
 
GreenEyedOne;3864102 said:
The sickos are at it again today, at the Daily Mail. A new article they just posted. Are these attacks going to come daily now?:angry: They are outright liars. Now they are trying to compare him to the likes of Jimmy Savile. I can't believe this. :(

Does anyone know who this Craig Brown is???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How wily ***** bamboozled Ron and Nancy
By Craig Brown
PUBLISHED: 17:32 EST, 8 July 2013 | UPDATED: 18:15 EST, 8 July 2013


Documents just released under the Freedom of Information Act show the FBI dropped an investigation into claims that Michael Jackson was abusing two Mexican children


Glamour craves power; power craves glamour. This is why celebrities and politicians like to rub shoulders, and this, too, is why their meetings so often end in tears.

Documents just released under the Freedom of Information Act show the FBI dropped an investigation into claims that Michael Jackson was abusing two Mexican children.

In May 1984 Jackson was all set to receive an honour at the White House, and it was felt that such an investigation could prove an embarrassment to President Reagan. So the investigation was abandoned and Jackson’s visit to the White House (pictured) went ahead.

There have been a number of strange collisions between presidents and pop stars, but this remains one of the oddest of all.

I first became intrigued by it when I was researching my book about remarkable meetings, One On One. This latest nugget of information offers us another piece of a most peculiar jigsaw.

Unusually, the presidential honour had been initiated not by the White House, but by its recipient.

Some months before, Jackson had been asked to donate his song Beat It as background music for a government advertisement against drink-driving.

Jackson was notoriously money-minded and image-conscious, so his immediate reaction was to say no. But then he saw how he could work it to his advantage.

‘You know what?’ he told his lawyer, John Branca. ‘If I can get some kind of an award from the White House, then I can give them the song. How about that?’

He added that he wanted to be on a stage at the White House with President Reagan. ‘And I sure want to meet Nancy.’


This all sounds perfectly sweet and fluffy. But under the guise of eccentricity, Michael Jackson was extremely wily, cultivating the powerful with the same precision he applied to cultivating children. In this respect, he was much like Britain’s own Sir Jimmy Savile, friend of princes and prime ministers.

So it is worth asking this question: might Jackson have arranged this meeting with President Reagan knowing full well that it would forestall the FBI investigation into his crimes?

Presidents tend to be old and unpopular, so they are always happy to be pictured with the young and popular. Within a matter of days, the White House had replied to the singer’s lawyer with an offer.


If Michael Jackson came to the White House, the President would present him with a special humanitarian award for his work against drink and drugs — and Nancy would be there to welcome him, too.

So at 11am on May 14, 1984, the President, wearing a navy blue suit, and the First Lady, wearing a white Adolfo suit, stood on a special platform on the South Lawn to greet Michael Jackson, who was wearing a military jacket with sequins, plus floppy gold epaulettes and a gold sash, a single white glove checkered with rhinestones, large dark glasses and full stage make-up.

Their meeting had peculiar echoes of a meeting that took place at the White House in 1970 between President Nixon and Elvis Presley.

Presley — also in full make-up, and drugged up to the eyeballs — had arrived wearing a large brass-buttoned Edwardian jacket over a purple velvet tunic with matching trousers, held up by a vast gold belt.

After an awkward conversation — ‘You dress kind of strange, don’t you?’ said Nixon, to which Elvis replied: ‘You have your show and I have mine’ — Elvis had asked the President for a Special Agent badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and a bemused President Nixon had felt obliged to present him with one.

Fourteen years later, President Reagan must have felt similarly cornered. ‘Michael Jackson is taking time to lead the fight against alcohol and drug abuse,’ he said, adding that he was ‘proof of what a young person can accomplish free of drink or drug abuse’.

Oddly enough, Jackson’s autopsy 25 years later would reveal traces in his blood of lidocaine, diazepam, nordiazepam, lorazepam, midazolam, propofol and ephedrine.

After the award ceremony, Jackson was ushered into the White House, where he was horrified to find that the Diplomatic Reception Room was full of adults.

He consequently turned on his heels, ran down the hall, and locked himself in a lavatory. ‘They said there would be kids. But those aren’t kids!’ he protested through the door to his manager.

White House officials rushed around, bundling a handful of children into the Roosevelt Room, and Jackson finally agreed to come out.

‘It’s all so peculiar, really. A boy who looks just like a girl, who whispers when he speaks, wears a glove on one hand and sunglasses all the time. I just don’t know what to make of it,’ whispered Nancy Reagan to a member of the Jackson entourage.

‘Listen, you don’t know the half of it,’ he replied.

*** Use this link to file your complainthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ROWN-How-wily-*****-bamboozled-Ron-Nancy.html

Info on Craig Brown (he's a satirical writer)

Born in Wokingham,[1] Berkshire, Brown was educated at Eton and Bristol University and then became a freelance journalist in London, contributing to The Tatler, The Spectator, The Times Literary Supplement, Literary Review, the Evening Standard (as a regular columnist), The Times (notably as parliamentary sketchwriter; these columns were compiled into a book called A Life Inside) and The Sunday Times (as TV and restaurant critic). He later continued his restaurant column in The Sunday Telegraph and has contributed a weekly book review to The Mail on Sunday.

He created the characters of Bel Littlejohn, an ultra-trendy New Labour type, in The Guardian, and Wallace Arnold, an extremely reactionary conservative, in The Independent on Sunday. In 2001, he took over Auberon Waugh's "Way of the World" in The Daily Telegraph following Waugh's death. He lost that column in December 2008. However, he is probably best known for his Diary in the fortnightly satirical magazine Private Eye, in which he adopts the persona of a celebrity or other public figure. His targets have included the Queen, Jackie Collins, Bill Clinton, Martin Amis, Harold Pinter (numerous times) and the publicist Max Clifford. A typical reference, characteristically combining viciousness and honesty, came in the purported entry for Mary Archer, married to convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer: "I am the chairman of the Ethics Committee at Addenbrookes Hospital, and well used to coming down hard on those who lie incompetently." Another typical Eye Diary mocks Martin Amis's pretensions: "Why, pray, is it necessary to point out at this post-millennial juncture that Iosef Stalin is no mate of this 52-year-old novelist? Why, indeed?"

Brown also writes comedy shows such as Norman Ormal for TV (in which he appeared as a returning officer[2]), and his radio show This Is Craig Brown was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 2004. It featured comics Rory Bremner and Harry Enfield and other media personalities. He has appeared on television as a critic on BBC2's Late Review as well as in documentaries such a Russell Davies's life of Ronald Searle.

His book 1966 and All That takes its title, and some other elements, from 1066 and All That, extending its comic history of Britain through to the beginning of the 21st century. A BBC Radio 4 adaptation followed in September 2006, in similar vein to This Is Craig Brown. The Tony Years is a comic overview of the years of Tony Blair's government, published in paperback by Ebury Press in June 2007.

Brown's wife's niece is Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine.[3] Brown also has a column in the Daily Mail.

Source: Wikipedia
 
If MJ fans just ignore these false reports they will be taken as fact by the ignorant people who believe everything they read and the false stories will continue. By correcting these false reports in the comments section it may just make one reader question what they're being told, and might even make them realise they are being lied to. THAT is an outcome worth fighting for.


The editors don't care and the reporters don't care, but we should still bombard them with emails so they know we won't lie down.


The most important thing is to contact the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Every time you see a false article. If they receive enough complaints they are required to act, and may even force an apology.


http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html




IT is true that anybody from any country can complain, so let's keep complaining until the PCC do something.
 
I'm gonna post this in both discussion threads for people to see it.

"@KeyaMorgan: I have 100% confirmation from Tom Mesereau that he does NOT have a twitter account. PS-I see 4 fake Keya Morgan @twitter should remove!"

All the famous people should get verified to avoid many people like these mofos cheat others. I wonder if Twitter has the option to report fake accounts.
 
^^ Only the person being impostered can report the account. I sent all the info and links to TM if he wishes to do that.
We have better sources in that fan community than Keya Morgan that have spoken to Tom or his office that stated the account is fake. It takes awhile to get verified, sometimes months.
 
No, I haven't seen testimony from that case.

Yes, I know how mind-boggling it is that the media is so protected and they can lawfully get away with so many things which basically ruin lives! That's why I call them the holy cows of modern Western societies. Laws like the Shield Law allow them to make up lies without consequences. All they have to do to cite an "unnamed source" and they can say anything they want to as not even the Court can force them to reveal their sources! So those sources can lie or may not even exist at all and no one can be found resonsible for a lie that potentially ruins someone's reputation or life. I know that Western societies value freedom of speech and freedom of the press above anything else, but is that a good thing when there are obviously many, many people in the media who cynically abuse those rights and use them to destroy other people? I think some stronger boundaries should be set.

For example, I would not allow the media to use anonymous sources, especially when negative claims, allegations, accusations are made about someone. That would not stop slander altogether, but would significantly reduce it. People making accusations could not hide behind anonymity (What a cowardly thing that is, actually!) and should be be able to held responsible for their words. And often when you know who the source is that puts the whole story into a whole different perspective. Then you know the history of that person with the accused, you know his or her agenda etc.

I think the mistake VG made was that he named his source - claiming it was the boy's mother, Margaret Maldonado. Who then could come out and deny the whole story. If VG hadn't named the boy and the mother he would have probably got away with it. But yeah, even the fact that Dimond got off is mind-boggling. Against a journalist it's not enough to prove she or he lied. It has to be proven she or he did it with malice. And that's the hard part. Dimond's defense was that she acted in good faith, genuinely believing her source. Another point of her defense was that she reasonably did what she could to veryify the story - by going to Tom Sneddon and asking him about it. Sneddon apparently told her that they are investigating the allegation, so apparently this statement from Sneddon was enough to prove that Dimond did everything to background check the story... Yeah, it's ridiculous, but apparently that's how it is. And that is exactly why journalists often send their info to authorities, even if they know it's false - so that they can use it in their defense later on. Just like Roger Friedman said in one of his 2005 articles:



That's exactly why Dimond was able to get away with it too.

DD claimed that she called Tom Sneddon for verification and he said "No comment." She asserted that when he said "no comment" that meant there was an investigation. That's all she had to go by "no comment." That the court and the appeals court accepted this is such incredible dereliction of duty IMO both of the journlist's obligation to check the story in a reasonable way before running on TV with it (esp. when it is so defamatory) and the court to rein in the press. The controls on the press and the paps are so inadequate. The whole purpose of the 'freedom of the press' is based on the idea of "public interest" and that the public needs to be 'informed in order to make rational decisions." But we now have freedom of the press to misinform the public so they can make irrational decisions. A misled public is not in the 'public interest.' It only corrupts the entire democratic process.

I found another book by a responsible journalist about the way the media has degenerated from their obligation to tell the truth--Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion"
 
from the Press Complaints Commission website: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

When you make a complaint you need to have the date of the article, the newspaper, and the headline.
Daily Mail, July 8, 2013, "How Wily J--o Bamboozled Ron and Nancy (author Craig Brown)
Mirror "Michael Jackson Paid 23 MILLION [pounds] buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years" 6/30 (authors Desborough and Gardner)

Sunday People 'FBI Files: ***** Abused 24 Kids: sickening evidence reveals how superstar bought off parents and victims" 6/30 (Desborough and Gardner)

Any more? Or are these the main ones?


INTRODUCTION

The Editors' Code of Practice is published in full below. You can also download a PDF version here or you can email tonia.milton@pcc.org.uk to be posted a hard copy.

If you are a journalist or editor you can order a wallet-sized version of the Code that is produced on behalf of the industry by the Society of Editors from office@societyofeditors.org

This section also includes an Introduction to the Code, which explains the function of the Code and who is responsible for its development; and a history of the Code, which provides a comprehensive summary of all changes made to the Code since 1991.


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 December 2011 to include changes taking effect from 1 January 2012.

THE EDITORS' CODE

All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards
. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.

It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.

It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.

Editors should co-operate swiftly with the Press Complaints Commission in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must publish the adjudication in full and with due prominence agreed by the Commission's Director, including headline reference to the PCC.



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.

3

*Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.

Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

4

*Harassment


i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

5

Intrusion into grief or shock


i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.

*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.
6

*Children


i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.

iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.

7

*Children in sex cases


1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.

2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -

i) The child must not be identified.

ii) The adult may be identified.

iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified.

iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.

8

*Hospitals


i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.

ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.
9

*Reporting of Crime


(i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

(ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

10

*Clandestine devices and subterfuge


i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

11

Victims of sexual assault


The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.

12

Discrimination


i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

13

Financial journalism


i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.

ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.

iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.

14

Confidential sources


Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

15

Witness payments in criminal trials


i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.

*ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.

*iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.

16

*Payment to criminals


i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.

ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at the time.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.
 
Last edited:
I've come to the conclusion that the FBI needs to be notified that the British press is accusing them of multiple coverups concerning Michael Jackson. Many articles have been put into circulation alleging that very fact. It's time to let @FBIPressOffice know what's going on and give them the links of their coverups. ;)
 
Just thought I'd share what I just received from the Press Commission:




Thank you for your recent correspondence.

I will be dealing with your complaints against the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail before they go to the Commission for a decision under the Code, and will keep you informed of the progress of our investigation into these matters. A copy of your correspondence has been sent to both publications, and I will write to you again once I have received their responses.

I would like to set out a number of points about our procedures, for your information.

• Speed: The Commission has a commitment to deal with all complaints as quickly as possible. It expects both complainants and newspapers – and their representatives – to cooperate with that commitment. Any unreasonable delay on either side may be taken into account by the Commission.

• Transparency: As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to comment upon what the other has to say. The Commission can only take into account information which has been seen by both parties.

• Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation overseen by the PCC requires good faith on both sides. In order for the PCC to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or publication, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation – most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party. Publication without consent may affect the PCC’s ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered by the PCC when it reaches a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during a PCC investigation must only be used for the purpose of the investigation. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling made by the Commission.

• Commission rulings: It is possible that the Commission may find that your complaint does not amount to a breach of the Code. If this is the case we will explain to you why the Commission took this decision.

• Correspondence with the editor: We will usually send a copy of each letter of complaint to the editor even if the complaint does not raise a breach of the Code. Similarly, any substantive decision made by the Commission under the terms of the Code will be sent to the editor.

• Legal proceedings: The Commission cannot deal with any complaint which is the subject of legal or other associated proceedings. You should let us know immediately if you decide to take legal action in relation to your concerns.

• Data Protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided to the Commission for the purposes of dealing with your complaint. You also consent to the publication of the Commission's decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.

• Independent Reviewer: If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer who will investigate and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. Further details are included in the enclosed How to Complain booklet, or via the following link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html

A copy of the Code of Practice, which all subscribing newspapers and magazines adhere to, can be found at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

Further information about the complaints process can be found at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

Information about our service commitments to complainants can be found at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html.

I should make clear that Peter Wright (ex-editor of The Mail on Sunday), is currently a member of the Press Complaints Commission. However, as the Daily Mail, the sister newspaper of The Mail on Sunday, is the subject of your complaint, he will, of course, not take part in any discussion or consideration of the complaint by the Commission.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you need further advice. When you write to me, please quote our reference numbers.

Yours sincerely




Ben Gallop
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
 
^^It seems the FBI don't give a f*ck! :angry:

they should. Not to save Michael's ass, but to protect their own reputation. As it is right now, they're being publically blamed for helping a "dangerous pedophile" getting away with his crimes, obstruction of justice and what not. There are a lot of reasons why they should care. They can easily and effectively put an end to this nonsense.
 
The official reports were released years ago in which it was specifically stated that after all the years of watching and following the man, all of these claims were unfounded. I wouldn't expect them to really care, at this point, it's unfortunate but true. They released their reports on their official website, these "new sets of FBI files" don't come from there, they come from tabloids, that alone tells people what common sense that this isn't true. Michael will always have his haters who will ignorantly continue to buy into shit like this, but in a world filled with horrible things like domestic terrorism and other things, the FBI isn't going to waste time and resources going after tabloids.


The sad thing is, I sincerely believe Michael Jackson draws these tabloids the most money, you pick up a magazine and you see Michael on the cover with some juicy headline underneath, it's almost a guaranteed view by the consumer. With Michael gone, they will continue to make stuff up, with the safety of knowing that the man is no longer here to fight back anymore. It's up to the Estate to fight these things now, and unfortunately they seem more concerned with continuing they're own money machine, instead of clearing Michael's name.
 
they should. Not to save Michael's ass, but to protect their own reputation. As it is right now, they're being publically blamed for helping a "dangerous pedophile" getting away with his crimes, obstruction of justice and what not. There are a lot of reasons why they should care. They can easily and effectively put an end to this nonsense.

I think so too. I'm going to file a new complaint with them on the most recent article that accusses President Ronald Reagan of assisting with the FBI coverup.

There is a new article posted on the web now (from The Province) with this headline: "Report says Reagan helped sink Michael Jackson sex probe." They are saying President Reagan was involved too. The FBI needs to know about this too.:D
 
Back
Top