If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The picture published with the obituary of Lord Wolfson of Marylebone (Ecosse, last week) was that of Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale. We apologise for the error. Link
A diary item (Moving On, Home, February 14) incorrectly reported that JK Rowling offered £300,000 on top of the purchase price for a property she was buying to get the vendor to leave his furniture behind and vacate the property within two weeks. We apologise for any embarrassment caused. Link
In “What Tony did next” (News Review, December 20) we referred to the allegation that “senior Labour figures were offering peerages in return for donations to the party”. As stated in the piece, Tony Blair was questioned by the police in the course of their inquiry into the allegation. A further eight officials or donors were also questioned. We should, however, have made it clear that no charges were brought against anyone. We are happy to set the record straight.
An article “Israel list names Russians helping Iran build nuclear bomb” (World News, last week) stated that Robert Einhorn, the special adviser for non-proliferation and arms control to Hillary Clinton, was understood to believe that Russian companies have also supplied material that has been used by Iran in the production of ballistic missiles. Mr Einhorn assures us that he does not recall having said anything like that to anyone and was not given an opportunity to refute the statement. We regret the error and are happy to set the record straight.
An article, “Rescuing Robohack” (Focus, last week), said that The New York Times denied that it had paid a ransom for the release of the reporter David Rohde but that authoritative sources in the region said the Taliban received up to $9m (£5.4m). The New York Times assures us that no ransom at all was paid by any party on its behalf to secure the freedom of Rohde. We accept that our regional sources were mistaken and that The New York Times paid no ransom. We are happy to set the record straight. As we previously reported, Rohde and an Afghan colleague escaped by using a rope to scale a wall, and nothing in our story was intended to cast doubt on that account. Link
The Sunday Times wishes to correct a number of inaccuracies in an article dealing with the Press Council last Sunday. The headline stating "Press Council attacks papers" was incorrect, and the statement that the chairman, Professor Tom Mitchell, had criticised two newspapers for not publishing decisions against them was also incorrect. There is no "stand-off" with any newspaper, as reported.
We apologise for this lapse in reporting and have taken steps to ensure that it does not happen again.
In our article (July 6, 2008) headlined Met Marksman gets £5,000 payout over ‘serial killer’ quip, we quoted a senior police officer saying the Met marksman was known as ‘Killer’ and that “he revelled in his nickname”. We have been assured by the marksman that he does not have that nickname and consequently could not possibly have revelled in it. We accept this and that his claim against Commander Sue Akers was not therefore hypocritical and we apologise for any embarrassment or distress this may have caused. Link
Boris Johnson did not “tip off” Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman, before he was arrested, as we wrongly suggested (Magazine, December 28). Mr Johnson only spoke to Mr Green, who is a friend and colleague, after his arrest. We apologise to Mr Johnson.
Last week, we reported that Martin Clunes had cut the price of his Wimbledon home by £ 500,000. The price was, in fact, reduced by £ 50,000. We apologise for any offence caused.
Last week’s letter, entitled Facts in the pipeline, from Mr Robin Knight of London regarding allegations made in the Magazine article headlined Britain’s dirty business (April 6), and mentioning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, referred to “destruction of business, population displaced, state corruption”. The correct wording should, of course, have read: “destruction of wetlands, population displaced, state corruption”. We are happy to make this clear.
It appears that Radar magazine produces some very enticing content. Last year, a Chilean magazine plagiarized from Radar’s Toxic Bachelors feature. Then, this past Sunday, the London Sunday Times “inadvertently” plagiarized content from a Radar piece, “100 Reasons Why You’re Still Single.” A report from the Guardian:
A piece headlined “50 Reasons Why You’re Still Single” appeared in the Sunday Times Style magazine, bylined to the title’s deputy editor, Camilla Long.
The feature was a humorous miscellany of men and women’s irritating personal habits, such as “use the word babe” and “posed with your cat on your Facebook profile”.
However, more than 15 of the Sunday Times’ 50 entries were substantially similar to a list, “100 Reasons Why You’re Still Single”, that appeared in US pop culture Radar magazine last September.
The Style magazine editor, Tiffany Darke, confirmed that the magazine’s deputy editor, Camilla Long, penned the piece.
Darke also confirmed that many of the items were the same as those included in Radar’s list.
She told MediaGuardian.co.uk that Style magazine had decided to run a piece on the theme and invited contributions from friends, contacts and colleagues.
The Sunday Times’ “50 Reasons…” piece had separate men’s and women’s lists with 25 items each, while Radar had a single list with 100 entries.
Darke said the items that were the same as on Radar’s list came from an unnamed contributor and the magazine ran them without checking…
The Guardian piece also includes a comparison between the Radar and Times articles. Hopefully the paper will do away with publishing unchecked information from “unnamed contributors.”
Our report “Now wash your hands (and bedpans, and floors ..)” (Focus, October 14), concerning the health problems at Maidstone hospital was illustrated by an agency photograph of Mrs Patricia Fisk wearing an unhygienic nurse’s uniform. We had wrongly understood that Mrs Fisk was a model who had signed a model release form to allow unlimited use and adaptation of the picture. In fact Mrs Fisk is a senior nurse employed by another NHS trust who has never worked for Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. When photographed she was wearing a clean uniform, but to illustrate the article the photograph was modified to make it look unhygienic. We unreservedly apologise to Mrs Fisk for any distress and embarrassment caused by the photograph. Link