“YOU missed the point, Mr Cecil Thoms” titled Mark Wignall’s next article besmirching DYC Fishing Ltd (DYC), published by the Observer on May 23, 2010.

Now revealed, Wignall made no checks pertinent and in support of the falsehoods he was now peddling.

He wrote of two fishing licenses and two “breaches” alleging ownership and action respectively by DYC. He then echoed “closer attention” by the Ministry responsible for Fisheries (Ministry) in this regard.

These are the facts. DYC has never applied for nor been granted any licences to fish for lobsters, as alluded by Wignall. DYC has never been accused of, charged with, prosecuted for, pleaded to, found guilty of or in any way participated in any “breach” as espoused by Wignall.

Whilst Wignall sustained his assault on DYC, the Ministry sought to “revise” the licensing policy for lobsters, publishing a Notice on June 8th. This policy change resulted in 14 licences being granted despite the accepted convention that the Pedro Bank fishing grounds can only accommodate 8.

As a result of this limitation licensees had curtailed expansion of their fleets and pursued no new licences. Further, applications from persons of long standing in the industry had been consistently refused in keeping with this convention.

Two of the resulting licences granted are revealing and pertinent to this apology. One was to an applicant who had stated that he would use his own vessel. This use never materialised.

The other was granted to a close relative of a government official. Records show this new applicant, conveniently sourcing pre-requisites in anticipation of the policy change. Ultimately, both new licensees utilised foreign-owned vessels which bearing DYC finds repugnant.

DYC notified the Contractor General of these developments, who promised an investigation.

With some modicum of investigative journalism Wignall could have easily uncovered these facts.

Since their publication, the Observer has learnt that the allegations against DYC and assumptions made by Wignall in this article bore no truth whatsoever and regrets ever publishing them. The Observer is pleased to have and takes this opportunity to express its unreserved apology to DYC for the resulting damage to its good name and good report.

Further, the Observer retracts the offending article and offers its sincere apologies to the principals, directors, employees and worldwide partners of DYC, for the embarrassment, heartache and anguish this article has caused.