I'm referring to your article here about Schapelle Corby. You refer to her as a "Drug smuggler." When referring to any person, there are many ways you could choose to describe them, such as "Australian," "Former Gold Coast resident," or "Former beauty student." These are just random examples off the top of my head. You could also choose to use no adjectives re Schapelle at all. However, when you deliberately choose to use "Drug Smuggler," you are also deliberately choosing to hi-lite certain facets and alleged "Facts."
You are (in effect), telling your readers about Schapelle's "Conviction" in a way that informs them (by omission of key points), that she was found "Guilty" through the due process of law, as understood by most Australians. It's a natural assumption to make. This is not correct. Schapelle's conviction was not lawful under either Australian or Indonesian law. Both jurisdictions require the presumption of innocence, and "Proof" of the charges laid. You will find many of those key facts thoroughly explained in this Sydney Morning Herald article (March 5th 2005).
Therefore, I am asking your publication to either formally (and publicly), retract it's use of the term "Drug smuggler" in relation to Schapelle, or to run an extensive article which fully describes and outlines the illegal nature of her conviction.
You may also wish to mention that the very senior policeman who was running a major "Drugs operation" at Sydney Airport (exact same time and terminal pertinent to Schapelle), is now in prison, awaiting trial on conspiring to import $120 million worth of drugs into this country, AND that the NSW Crime Commission (who employed that very senior policeman in the role of "Assistant Commissioner"), sold huge amounts of cocaine to the Australian public, at a very large profit. You could also report on the serious allegations of Ray Cooper, former Head of Operations, AFP Internal investigations, plus report the current complaints, re AFP/Queensland Police corruption (concerning Schapelle), that are now formally lodged with ACLEI (more info on that here too), The Commonwealth Ombudsman and The Queensland Parliamentary Crime & Misconduct Committee.
I look forward to your response on this matter, and I'll call your office tomorrow to confirm receipt of this correspondence.
If there is no satisfactory outcome (which corrects the public record), I will be lodging a formal complaint with The Media Alliance, in regard to the journalist who wrote the article. It is quite clear (in the very first point of their Code of Ethics), that the points I've outlined above are legitimate. More about that here.
So in summary, please be in no doubt that if there is no satisfactory outcome on this formal complaint to you by the end of this week, further complaints will be lodged with The Media Alliance ASAP, and formally followed up here, for the World to view (1st Google page, 2nd link down).
And you may also wish to take into account that this blog is a great deal more than one individual's words on a screen. It is a building body of formal evidence than can (and will), be taken to appropriate international bodies, re gross and continuing breaches of Schapelle's human rights. Australian media complicity in the corruption cover-up will be part of that far reaching report, and will also put other Australian outlets in the dock of Global opinion too.
And one more point David, Schapelle WILL have babies, but it won't be in that filthy, corrupt hell-hole - it will be back home here, in Australia, where she belongs.
a. CCTV evidence that connects Schapelle to the drugs found in her bag?
b. Direct physical & forensic evidence from the Australian premises of Schapelle, that connects her to the drugs found in her bag?
c. Luggage weight evidence that connects Schapelle to the drugs found in her bag?
d. Phone and banking record evidence that connects Schapelle to the drugs found in her bag?
e. Finger print and human DNA evidence that connects Schapelle to the drugs found in her bag?
And further to the above, I also rang the Media Alliance, to speak to someone there re the process for formal complaints, relating to Point 1 of their Code of Ethics. No-one was available to speak to me (even informally), because all complaints are examined by an elected panel of 12 people, and have to be in writing. So asked who was on this panel, and the woman I was speaking to wasn't sure if she could tell me, because of "Privacy issues." She said she would investigate that further, and she would call me back, if I didn't call her back first. I said that was fine.