[Esqui]

This was remarkably high up on the showbiz front page: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A MailOnline article of 13 July claimed that there had been a ‘bitter battle’ between Tamzin Outhwaite and Tom Ellis over child support payments following their divorce because Mr Ellis had said he was too poor to pay child maintenance. In fact there was no such dispute. Mr Ellis has always abided by his childcare commitments and at no point has he claimed that he was too poor to make child support payments. We apologise to Mr Ellis and have agreed to pay him substantial damages and costs.

[Esqui]

Even 10 days later, the above one is still pride of place on the Showbiz front page. Impressive.

Meanwhile, a great one from the Mail this time: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are happy to make clear that the right not to be tortured is an absolute right, not subject to any caveat.

[Big Arnold]

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wrote in a recent article about the European Court of Human Rights that not all of its judges are ‘legally qualified’.
We are happy to clarify that he meant that although they all hold legal qualifications, they are not all qualified to be senior judges in the UK.

How does the Mail know what he meant? Can't he make his own apology for saying something untrue?

Not Amused November 13, 2014 10:13am
If you are a Minister of the Crown and you mislead the British public by saying something which you know is false or which you ought to have known is false then you ought to resign.

It’s that simple.

http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/11/daily ... qualified/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Big Arnold]

We seem to have missed this one.

PUBLISHED: 23:33, 28 September 2014 | UPDATED: 23:33, 28 September 2014

A comment article on 13 August about the European Court of Human Rights said that the supply of heroin and gay porn to prisoners was now a ‘right’.
We are happy to clarify that this was not meant to be taken seriously and is not the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Who wrote that I wonder. Ah.

Democracy? No, Britain's now a judicial dictatorship - and it's time for revolution, writes RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

An earlier version of this article was amended to make clear that not all prisoners' claims to be allowed voting rights were made ten years ago. Earlier versions also carried a joking reference to the 'right' to heroin and gay porn behind bars. A clarification pointing out that this was not meant seriously was published on 29 September 2014.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z3Iz0vIhGb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Esqui]

Today's clanger:

An article in the final edition of yesterday’s paper incorrectly stated that 14.6, 9.5, 4.6 and 4.2 were the numbers in millions of migrants from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines respectively granted UK citizenship in 2012.

We are happy to clarify that these were in fact the respective percentages of UK citizenships granted to people from those countries.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z3JhJb3CkH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite how you can get that wrong, I don't know. Unless you're deliberately trying to stir up anti-immigrant hatred amongst your reade - oh...right.

And (unmoderated) comments on the article itself, swallow it:

onlybritish, london, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

So over 40 million non british then, what is happening to little old country

sandy, rottendale, United Kingdom, 1 day ago

we are being eth nic ally clean sed

[Big Arnold]

First one since November. Have we missed some?

The headline to Saturday's article about broadcaster Jeremy Vine wrongly said he had made his ten-year-old daughter a 'company director' of Jelly Vine Productions to help lower his tax bill.
We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, his daughter is a shareholder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z3UIiEfDAV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Big Arnold]

Our January 5 article ‘Blindness fears over eye surgery at High St clinic’ suggested that Optical Express risks causing its patients blindness through their procedures and choice of replacement lens implants. We accept this is completely untrue and Optical Express has confirmed that none of its more than 600,000 patients has ever gone blind following any treatment at its clinics. Our article also stated that more than 50 patients have joined a class action law suit against the lens manufacturer Oculentis and Optical Express over safety fears about the lens. In fact, no proceedings have been commenced. We apologise for these incorrect statements

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z3VLE25i1G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fozzy]

Good grief, there's virtually nothing more damaging you can say about opticians than that they're blinding their patients. I strongly suspect that that apology is only part of a bigger settlement which I sincerely hope involves them paying out very very large sums to Optical Express.

[Messianic Trees]

In June, the Daily Mail published an article about Princess Eugenie's forthcoming birthday party headlined: 'Eugenie hires seven dwarfs for her 25th…and she'll be starring as Snow White'. To verify the story, which included the fact that seven circus-style tents were also being hired, the newspaper commissioned a helicopter to fly over the Duke's home, a decision in which MailOnline was not involved. The Duke complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the article, three subsequent articles, and the helicopter flight. His complaint was not upheld in respect of the articles, but was in respect of the helicopter flight, and the Daily Mail are required to publish the following adjudication. It does not relate to any actions taken by MailOnline or its journalists.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... laint.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Andy McDandy]

So the Mail and Mailonline are, for practical, legal and reporting purposes, separate organs. Meaning that if you had a complaint, you'd have to raise two separate cases. Interesting.

[Big-Iain]

"Happy To Make Clear"
Perhaps it's me, but I suspect that there's a lot more story behind this perfunctory Clarification.

An article on 11 January wrongly suggested that Gale Booth is Lauren Booth’s mother. We are happy to make clear that Gale Booth was not an alcoholic or an unfit parent and apologise for the distress caused to her.

That C+C wording seems to appear on quite a few Mail web-pages (such as this journalistic emetic) so I wonder of there's some force behind it.

[The Red Arrow]

And yet again we're in 'How big was the article compared to the correction?' territory, aren't we?

[Andy McDandy]

Interesting how they always 'suggest' things that turn out later to be absolute codswallop. They never say, or write, or print, or state, but suggest. The suggestion being that it was you the reader's stupid fault for inferring the wrong thing.

[Abernathy]

The suggestion being that it was you the reader's stupid fault for inferring the wrong thing.

Which, to be honest, typical Daily Mail readers can usually be relied on to do.

[satnav]

The Mail briefly published this correction earlier but the article then quickly disappeared.

An article of 3 April (‘Report shows the NHS is nearly at breaking point as massive influx of EU migrants forces doctors to take on 1.5million extra patients in just three years’) stated that the surge in GP registrations was caused directly by EU migration. We are happy to make clear that – while leave EU campaigners blamed the rise in registrations on rising EU migration – the Health & Social Care Information Centre does not provide a breakdown of patients by GP per nationality, and that increasing life expectancy and migration from outside the EU are factors in the rise.