Shooting Times and the imperfect 8

See four previous blogs to catch up on this story: 28 May, Alleged breach of general licences; 2 July, The Shooting Times and the general licences; 2 July, A letter to the Shooting Times; 4 July, What that Shooting Times article might have said.

This week’s Shooting Times published this lame and inadequate correction;

It made us laugh that Mark was described as a ‘regular reader’ – regular as in ‘once in a blue moon’!

But this correction is inadequate, and we have written to Shooting Times to tell them so, as follows:

Dear Shooting Times

Wild Justice notes the correction you have published in this week’s magazine. We were amused to be described as regular readers – we read the Shooting Times about as regularly as England wins penalty shoot-outs.  Don’t kid yourselves!

Your ‘correction’ is inadequate in that it does not attempt to remedy the damage done by the original false account that you published. As you know, but as you have not informed your readers, the account you published described behaviour that, had it actually occurred, would make anyone behaving in the same way liable to a police investigation concerning a potential breach of the general licences.  You have not corrected that consequence of your publication in any way by your feeble and minimalist correction.

Whilst we appreciate the good humour in which this exchange of emails has taken place, this is your last chance to remedy the situation. Failing you responding adequately to us by noon on Friday 23 July we will forward this correspondence, which shows we have given you every opportunity to act responsibly, and full details of your breach of the Editors’ Code, to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. 

yours, very occasional and disappointed readers of the Shooting Times,

Wild Justice

We’ll let you know what happens. And, we haven’t heard from DEFRA yet.