Mail corrects claim on company collapse

Daily Mail, 2 March 2013:

all that remains of Cressida's patrimony is a pile of bricks alongside the A444 at Castle Gresley.

It once used to be the Bonas Brothers factory, but the business went bust in the Eighties. Its last hurrah was a line of goods branded Magic Touch, which included elastic for ladies' tights.

This was a desperate attempt to save the business, but memories are long in this corner of Derbyshire, and some blame Cressida's father, Jeffrey, for the collapse of the company with a loss of 100 jobs.

'Jeffrey let the business down,' says a former employee. 'All there is left is a pile of rubble.'

Daily Mail, 20 March 2013:

An article on March 2 repeated a claim that Mr Jeffrey Bonas had been partly responsible for the failure of part of the family business.

We are happy to clarify that Mr Bonas left the business concerned in 1972 and it was run under different ownership from 1980 for a further 25 years.

Pregnancy 'news' round up

Most of the tabloid newspapers put yet more royal baby news on their front pages on 6 March:

 

The Sun's front page makes it very clear - the Duchess of Cambridge was handed a teddy bear and said:

"Thank you, I will take that for my d...for my baby"

The same quote was used elsewhere.

Two days later and the Mail published a follow-up:

She didn't? With the help of a video of the incident, the Mail reveals that she actually said:

"Is this for us? Awww, thank you so much, it's [very] very sweet of you"

In other words: not much like what was originally reported. Curiously, this didn't make the front pages.

Meanwhile, in other 'pregnancy news', the Daily Star ran the headline 'Mystery of 'pregnant' star Cheryl Cole' on its front page on Saturday.

Here's what happened: a pregnant woman went to see Cheryl Cole in concert. 'So nice to see lovely @CherylCole', she tweeted. Cheryl replied: 'Nice to see you too, you look amazing pregnant'.

The 'mystery' is that anyone thought this meant Cheryl was pregnant, or that this was worthy of a place on the front page of a paper.

The Mail, Mail on Sunday and Pippa's party book

On 30 October 2011, a 'Mail on Sunday Reporter' wrote an article stating that Pippa Middleton was:

close to signing a book deal on how to be the perfect party hostess.

But, the paper warned:

The sisters' parents, Carole and Michael, were widely criticised for appearing to promote their party business on the back of the Royal Wedding earlier this year.

Pippa's advisers will also be careful to avoid the pitfalls of Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's former butler, whose book on hosting parties, Entertaining With Style, was published in 1999.

Mail columnist Peter McKay thought the venture 'distasteful'. Under the headline 'For your sister's sake, don't cash in, Pippa!', he wrote:

In a perfect world, it would be preferable if Pippa Middleton did nothing whatever that was reliant on being the sister of the future Queen Consort. But we, the reading public, have a degree of responsibility for that. Don’t buy it, if she does. Publishers obviously think that, in large numbers, we’d purchase anything by Pippa....

There is an alternative. She’ll always be Kate’s sister. Why not simply be proud of that, avoiding anything that appears to exploit this happy stroke of fortune?

A month later, the Mail on Sunday's Katie Nicholl reported that a £400,000 deal had been signed for the book.

Then, Mail columnist Jan Moir tutted her disapproval:

Pippa Middleton seems a lovely girl, but not the sort who could teach anyone very much about anything. And I can’t imagine the Queen will be best pleased that the ambitious sister of the Duchess of Cambridge has trousered £400,000 for her first book, a manual on entertaining. But never underestimate the Pippa!

A sneak peek of her hostess with the mostest party tips tome reveals the following nuggets: 1. To be a social hit, make sure you have the right equipment: a lovely big sister. 2. Get her to marry the heir to the throne. 3. Remember, bumpkins, it’s napkins, not serviettes. 4. Serve the peanuts before the pud.  5. Is there a hyphen in cash-in?  6. Can I have my money now?

Months later, Amanda Platell attacked the Middletons who, she said:

have an unsettling air of snootiness about their behaviour.

She added:

Why, for example, were Pippa and her brother James in the royal box at Wimbledon last week? Not because of their party-planning and cake-baking credentials, that’s for sure.

Pippa is now about to release her own party-planning guide, for which she’s said to have secured a £400,000 publishing deal. If it wasn’t for the royal connection, she’d be lucky to be writing recipes for the Bucklebury parish magazine.

In July, the Mail published an article (headline: 'Gold medal for cashing in goes to...' etc) about the Middleton's company Party Pieces, claiming it may have been in breach of Olympic advertising rules. When they were given the all-clear, the Mail failed to update its readers. This followed attacks on Party Pieces for their Jubilee merchandise ('could they have been a bit less tacky?') and for 'cashing in' on the Royal Wedding.

However, in yesterday's Mail on Sunday:

Exclusively in this weekend’s Mail on Sunday, you’ll find the first part of Pippa Middleton’s glorious guide to simple, creative entertaining, from her sensational new book – Celebrate: A Year of British Festivities for Family and Friends. This weekend we have 24 glossy pages of magical Hallowe’en tips and brilliant bonfire night ideas.

The Mail on Sunday may have thought it 'glorious' by the Mail's Peter McKay was still not impressed:

Can Her Royal Bottomness really have received a £400,000 advance for this tripe?

And how much more did she receive from the Mail on Sunday?

The 'date' that wasn't

Yesterday, MailOnline published an article about double Olympic gold medal-winning cyclist Laura Trott. She was pictured sat next to Prince Harry at the beach volleyball and so the MailOnline gossip-mongers felt they could speculate about what was going on:

It said they 'got on like a house on fire' and were 'laughing and joking together'. She had been 'invited to join Prince Harry' at the beach volleyball. She was 'Cinderella Laura' on a 'date' with a Prince.

It seems this 'inspired' the front page of today's Express:

This morning, the article looked different. MailOnline discovered photos of Trott kissing fellow cyclist Jason Kenny, and decided to re-write the article a little:

Suddenly, Trott had had 'two dates'. She had been 'chatting up' Harry, but was then kissing Kenny.

A tweet this morning from Trott, confirming a relationship with Kenny, led MailOnline to re-write the article for a third time:

The second bullet point says Trott was 'chatting to' Harry. That's rather different from claiming she was 'Harry's Olympic date'.

But what's clear is that many of the photos of Trott and Harry that fuelled the innuendo in the first article were simply misleading:

As can be seen from the last of these, Jason Kenny was sat next to Trott throughout her 'date' with Harry. Whether he was cropped out by the picture agency or MailOnline isn't clear. But it does seem very clear that the hacks at MailOnline used these pictures to imagine a 'date' wasn't a 'date' at all.

(Hat-tip to Dylan Mitchell)

MailOnline, the Middletons and the Olympic advertising rules

On Thursday morning, the lead story on MailOnline was about the Middletons and their business Party Pieces:

'Breach of strict laws'. 'Flouting the law'. 'Criminal offence'.

It sounded serious, although the tell-tale inclusion of 'could be' in the headline suggested otherwise. The article by Rebecca English said:

Kate’s sister Pippa, who writes an accompanying blog called The Party Times, is also taking a risk with a piece entitled Celebrate The Games And Support Team GB which provides links to many of the items on sale.

And although the firm is careful to avoid the most blatant breach of the stringent code – mentioning the actual word ‘Olympics’ – if you put Olympics into Party Pieces’ own search engine it takes you to their Celebrate The Games page, which could still be grounds for action.

Just after 5pm the same day, the Guardian reported:

The party planning company owned by the Duchess of Cambridge's family has been hurriedly cleared by London 2012 organisers of infringing brand protection laws, but will be asked to make "minor changes" to its website.

Locog said it would investigate the Party Pieces website, owned by the Duchess of Cambridge's parents and featuring a blog by her sister Pippa, after it emerged it was offering a range of Olympic-related goods in a section of the site headed "Celebrate the Games" and illustrated with the Olympic torch...

But following an investigation, a Locog spokeswoman said: "There are no infringements and the products are fine. We may ask them to make a very minor change to some copy."

At time of writing, over 36 hours after the Guardian's piece was published, MailOnline has not written an update for its readers. Given the prominence they gave to the original claims, they should.  

This comes less than two weeks after an attack on the Middleton family by Mail columnist Amanda Platell, who seemed very upset Pippa had been seen in the royal box at Wimbledon. The Middleton's now 'have an unsettling air of snootiness about their behaviour,' she said.

(Hat-tip to Jonathan Haynes)

'We don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject'

In his witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry, MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke talked about reporting pregnancies:

For instance the other month a US website broke the news of Sienna Miller’s pregnancy which was swiftly followed by all our American rivals but not by us because we don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject.

He made a similar point in his oral evidence:

Similarly, there are things that we can't write, pregnancy stories, for instance. The PCC says that we're not allowed to say somebody's pregnant unless they've confirmed it.

All of which sounds as if the MailOnline wouldn't dream of reporting a pregnancy unless it is 'confirmed' by the pregnant woman.

From six days ago:

And in November, MailOnline was not shy about reporting some feeble speculation and rumour about an unconfirmed 'pregnancy':

(Hat-tip to satnav at the Mailwatch Forum)

Sunday Express uses photo from 2007 for front page 'exclusive'

The front page of today's Sunday Express contains what the paper claims is an 'exclusive' about Prince Harry:

'Harry back with Chelsy'.

Is he? The article doesn't seem quite so sure:

Prince Harry sparked rumours that he is back with Chelsy Davy after they attended a surprise 22nd birthday party for Princess Eugenie together.

His former girlfriend of five years was among a select few at the intimate dinner at Windsor Castle on Friday night.

A royal insider said: “Prince Harry was there and so was Chelsy. Clearly they are still close. They appeared at ease with each other and were chatting happily together. Whether or not they have rekindled their relationship is anyone’s guess but they certainly seemed very friendly.”

From "anyone's guess" to front page 'exclusive'.

(Moreover, the Mail's Kate Nicholl was claiming last week that Chelsy had a 'moved on'.)

But what of the photo on the front page? It certainly seems to back up the headline.

However, it was actually taken at the Concert for Diana. In 2007. 

The paper almost admits this in the very last line of the story:

She and Harry famously enjoyed a kiss at the concert for his mother Princess Diana in 2007.

But how many people will only see the front page and think that kiss was more recent than five years ago?

Mail apologises to the Mayor of Gila Bend

In November, several newspapers reported comments from Ron Henry, the Mayor of Gila Bend, Arizona who had spoken about Prince Harry's imminent arrival at a nearby airbase for a helicopter training course.

The Sun and the Mail quoted Henry saying:

"There are probably some fathers here in Gila Bend who would go to extremes to protect their daughters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we have some very pretty girls here. Some of the dads won't take too kindly to a Prince fornicating the night away and drinking into the small hours. It is a very quiet town with a lot of good Christian people. This isn't a party town." 

Soon after, Henry issued a statement, accusing the Mail of 'a rogue and fabricated story':

“On behalf of the Town of Gila Bend, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Prince Harry and his fellow pilots as they conduct training at the Barry Goldwater Air Force Base...

“I am deeply saddened that comments written by the Daily Mail were not only taken out of context but also, total fabrications. In fact, the negative comments were the words of the reporter, who chose to sensationalize and fabricate a story, rather than report the truth. I would never make such outlandish comments. We have tremendous respect and adoration for Prince Harry and the Royal Family. We are excited, proud and honored to have him in our community, and we would like extend every courtesy to make his stay as comfortable as possible.”

Yesterday, the Mail published the following clarification:

In an article of 8 November we carried in good faith a news agency report that said Mayor of Gila Bend, Ron Henry, had warned Prince Harry not to ‘fornicate the night away’ whilst on an army posting to the Arizona town.

We would like to make clear that Mr Henry did not make this statement and apologise to him for this error.

The Sun's article still carries the 'fornicate' line, however. It also claims:

options in Gila Bend are somewhat more limited — the town boasts just one bar and no hard liquor licence. 

According to International Business Times:

Several British tabloid reports claimed that the town boasts just one bar, one restaurant, and one hotel (themed to look like a space rocket). These reports are simply not true.

Gila Bend boasts five hotels, an assortment of restaurants and bars and is an epicenter for renewable energy, particularly solar.

A representative for the town of Gila Bend laughed hysterically when she heard the tabloid descriptions of her town, but said Tuesday morning that they are "no longer commenting on the incident."

'May have left the impression'

An apology from the 'Corrections and clarifications' column in today's Mail on Sunday:

Last Sunday's article 'Kate's crimpers go to war' may have left the impression that Richard Ward, proprietor of the Richard Ward Hair & Metrospa salon in Chelsea, was jealous of James Pryce, a former employee, who styled the Duchess of Cambridge's hair on the day of the Royal Wedding. The article might also have suggested that Mr Ward was trying to capitalise on the salon's Royal links. We accept that Mr Ward has always given full credit to Mr Pryce for his work and that Mr Ward behaved in a totally proper manner with regard to any publicity before the Royal Wedding. We apologise for any embarrassment caused.

It says the story 'may have left the impression' the proprietor was 'jealous' of a former employee.

How is it that the article 'may' have given that 'impression'?

Perhaps the full headline from the original (now deleted) article can explain:

Kate's crimpers go to war: It's curling tongs at dawn as Royal hairdesser cuts and runs from 'jealous' salon boss.

Peanut paste and the 'royal baby'

On 27 April, the Daily Star proclaimed:

But when they said 'Royal baby on way' what they actually meant was 'Andrew Morton's got a book coming out and he thinks Kate might get pregnant within a year'.

Forward to July and the People asked:

The paper said:

The warning comes after reports that Kate, 29, is due to meet her gynaecologist Alan Farthing in the next few weeks to receive fertility advice.

But experts last night told The People that they would urge Kate to pile on the pounds to increase her chances.

On Friday, the Sun had the latest:

A pregnancy riddle, eh? And what's the Sun's evidence for this speculation:

The Duchess of Cambridge was at the centre of a pregnancy riddle last night after refusing to eat peanut paste during a royal engagement.

Kate, 29, turned down the protein snack as she and hubby William joined the Danish Crown Prince and his wife at a famine relief depot. For years government experts urged mums-to-be to avoid peanuts, fearing a link to allergies.

For years they did, but that advice was changed in 2009.

So, she didn't eat some peanut paste. Is that it? Well no, there's an anonymous 'onlooker' too:

One onlooker said: "The Duchess does not have a nut allergy, nor is it like her to appear rude. The only explanation is that she is pregnant and has been told — like many expectant mothers — to avoid nuts."

The 'only explanation'? Not according to the 'senior Palace source' quoted two sentences later:

"Pregnancy is not the only explanation. The Duchess is still new to appearing in front of the cameras at official events.

"It is perfectly plausible that she may not yet feel comfortable eating while the cameras are focused on her. This is not the first time she's turned down food while under the spotlight."

MailOnline repeated the Sun's story on Saturday, and then added an extra detail on Sunday:

The 29-year-old was seen patting or holding her stomach at least a dozen times during a two-hour visit to an aid centre in Copenhagen.

Despite all the cameras, the Mail has only published one photo of her doing this.  

Still, perhaps the Sunday papers could shed some light. The Daily Star Sunday said:

Despite the headline, the article stated:

Kate and Wills have chosen a posh palace as the dream home for their prospective baby...

The official announcement of their change of address adds to speculation Kate, 29, is pregnant – or will be soon.

But The People was adamant: Kate is not pregnant:

Prince William and wife Kate Middleton have ­decided against having their first child until after the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, The People can ­reveal.

Speculation that Kate, 29, is pregnant after refusing to eat ­peanut butter ­during a royal ­engagement in Demark was firmly quashed yesterday.

And The People can confirm the couple have put off plans to have children until after June 2012 ­ because they do not want to overshadow the Jubilee celebrations.

So she might be pregnant. Or she might be not be. Once she is, it's likely we're going to find out officially. Do we really have to have endless speculation until that time?

Liz and Kate

Today, the Mail's Liz Jones asks:

Yes, why does the fashion world 'hate' Kate Middleton?

Perhaps some previous columns written by former Marie Clare editor Jones can help explain?

On 17 November 2010, for example, Jones admitted Kate's style 'showed promise' but:

Kate will have to ditch, overnight, much that she loves: the long, scuffed boots and woolly or fishnet tights. The sequins. The awful, ubiquitous baseball cap. The skinny jeans and wedge shoes. Wearing a Topshop dress on her birthday. The wraparound shades — we need to see her eyes.

She will have to do more with her hair other than simply dousing it in what looks like Pantene Pro-V. Kate shouldn’t lose too much length, but a Scarlett Johansson-style chignon would be good for big occasions.

Most of all, she will have to stop not being too bothered and simply pulling on something nondescript in black from Next....

Kate will need to be prepared for near-constant critique.

Indeed she will.

On 11 February, Jones questioned whether Kate had 'the right look for lunch':

Kate does her own make-up, which is commendably frugal, not to mention brave, considering her status. But in my opinion, she is hiding behind a little too much slap on this occasion, which serves to make her look old beyond her years...

The dress is a lovely choice... although I’d rather Kate wore British...

I’m afraid I don’t go for this jacket...Oh, and sorry to sound so picky, but a jacket done up over a dress is just wrong...

The thick black tight has become something of a Kate signature and one I wish she could be weaned off.

Two days later, she was doing it again, offering what she called 'constructive' criticism:

why the monochrome outfits and black accessories?...And why the dreary shapes?...

Kate is being badly let down at the moment in the fashion stakes.

Just before the wedding, Jones had more:

I want Kate to make a splash. To make us gasp at every turn. Yes, in order to do this she is bound to make mistakes along the way...But at least she won’t be boring...

My main problem with Kate’s shopping spree last week is not her choice of labels, so much as that she shouldn’t be picking up clothes piecemeal, on a whim or, worse, in a last-minute panic. It is all so casual...staggeringly, mind-bogglingly cheap and disappointingly pedestrian.

When the Obamas visited Britain in May, Jones thought Kate 'blew Michelle out of the water' but:

My only gripe with Kate is her hair, which is now a little too long, and too flicked at the ends.

Then today, Jones talked of those who are critical of Kate's style:

they were queuing up not to praise her but to slate her...‘She’s a very ordinary girl’ one fashion editor told me dismissively; ‘she needs better make-up’, added another.

Wherever I turned, the sentiment was the same. Why such enmity?

Why indeed.

She does at least admit:

I, too, have criticised Kate’s fashion sense in the past (she wears navy court shoes and American tan tights, after all.)

But she also adds a thought that reveals more than perhaps she intended:

for all their sneering at Kate, style-setters tend to have gaping holes in their personalities.

• Angry Mob has posted on Liz Jones' recent column about clothes and the riots. 

(UPDATE: Shouting at Cows has also blogged on Liz Jones' views on Kate.)

Sunday Express' front page 'news' on Pippa

The tabloid obsession with Pippa Middleton continues. The Mail website recently reported the stunning news that she had gone to a nightclub with her boyfriend and, a few days later, that she had received a parking ticket.

Today the Sunday Express runs the front page headline 'Cheeky Pippa ejected from a pub!'

The headline, plus the fact it's on the front page, would suggest that Pippa Middleton has been thrown out of a pub.

But as the page three article by Camille Tominey makes clear, that's completely misleading:

Pippa Middleton's posterior has caused a rumpus in a historic market town and has been booted off a pub sign.

The Bedfordshire hostelry’s landlord was ordered to take it down and rehang the more stately head of Catherine of Aragon...

Regulars at The Queens Head were initially treated to a picture of Kate Middleton to mark the Royal Wedding in April. Then Richard Hammond, who runs the pub with his son Daniel, replaced it with her sister Pippa’s rear after it was pointed out that Kate wasn’t yet queen.

So Pippa wasn't actually 'ejected from a pub' but a photo of her bum has been removed from pub sign.

Hold that front page...

Putting upskirt photos on the front page, with the Daily Star

On 29 May, Richard Desmond's Daily Star Sunday took a stand against a 'sick' German newspaper that had published upskirt shots of Pippa Middleton:


'Pippa pervs' the front page roared as it criticised an:

undie-Hans attack by a kinky German snapper.

And here's Saturday's Daily Star front page: