Salient's Team Comments

We would like to point out that our reports of the Convention came from a wide range of people. We have total faith in these people's honesty and did our best to check up on the facts before we printed our feature. Thus we stand by the accuracy of the original article but do admit that a few cases we will outline we made honest mistakes in our report.

We agree that we mistook the name of the Foundation for Peace Studies. We agree that the conflict was not directly with the proposed liaison committee but would point out that there was concern expressed that two action proposals did appear to raise conflict—the question of a research unit, and that of a full-time researcher. Although it was not clearly expressed we assumed (perhaps wrongly) that such activities could only be undertaken under a liaison committee. We apologise for the confusion raised in the feature.

We agree that many at the convention, including our team, had seen the affirmations etc beforehand but would point out a significant section who had enrolled late or on the actual days of the Convention had not.

The question of Ron O'Grady's exact words is (as you say) best resolved by Ron O'Grady himself. We accept that there was a transcription error in this case. We had thought that the transcription was reasonably accurate and had asked people present if that was what was said.

Now that the full details on the invitation of the Chinese have at last been given we must apologise for our misrepresentation of the efforts of the organisers. We also accept that it was two, not several, conferences that Hinchcliff went to before ICPA.