Here, how do you distinguish “bullying” from “robust and aggressive argument”? Roberts was veey forceful after his return from suspension (for forgery). I personally would not have disagreed with the Mail’s choice of words but can see that it would have been very hard to justify formally to an expensive Court.

Your corrections and clarifications blog is an excellent idea and highlights the Mail’s policy of burying apologies on its own site.

I mean 2 Dec. But thanks, fixed.

“Unemployment

While a recent opinion piece was right to point out that unemployment in Britain is below that of many of our major competitors, the correct figure should have been 8.1 per cent rather than 7.1 per cent.

[Not enough information to identify this story on the Mail web site]”

I can tell you where it came from – this is the same piece which they had to apologise to me about (listed a couple of items below on your site). It has been corrected now although not noted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050267/UK-economic-outlook-Its-time-stopped-talking-Britain-down.html

Two points to note –

1. it took them a full month to correct this basic error (the stats are on the front page of the ONS website) even though I pointed it out at the time to both the Mail and Mr Brummer (at the same time I complained to the PCC about the reference to me, for which they were forced to apologise).

2. The original article contained a further obvious error (about GDP growth) in a chart. This has now been removed, although they didn’t bother to publish a correction.

3. I didn’t bother to complain about the labelling of our chart as “misleading” even though it obviously isn’t – it shows exactly what it says it shows. Fullfact did a blog on this.