Sorry for the long post but I'm trying to give as much context as possible.

I proposed to my wonderful girlfriend at the end of a professional production of a parody of Pride and Prejudice she was performing in about two weeks ago. I did so after discussing and planning the surprise proposal with the director. The proposal happened after the finale and bows and the director got up on stage and announced an 'alternate ending' - giving audience members plenty of opportunity to leave following the end of the actual production. The cast then reperformed the last scene but instead of Mr Darcy proposing to Elizabeth Bennett (played by my gf) he asked her to turn around where I was waiting with the ring. She said 'yes' I was a nervous wreck as I approach the stage as I'm a bit of an introvert, but as my girlfriend is an actress and the play was being staged in a beautiful intimate setting I thought it would be the perfect way to do it and subsequently my girlfriend agrees. We felt very lucky that a few members of the audience were able to capture the moment on camera.

The theatre company asked if they could use the video to help in marketing and we were more than happy to agree to. We consequently did an interview with a local newspaper and radio station to help push this.

We were then contacted by a News Agency who asked us for a further interview, telling us it might end up in national publications. Whilst neither of us are particularly fond of attention (I know, she's an actress, but she's also very shy) we figured if nothing else further articles would be a nice momento of the occasion.

Upon carrying out what seemed to be a totally harmless interview the news agency seems to have sold our story to the Daily Mail and The Sun who has subsequently put a negative spin on the proposal. The article in the Daily Mail seemed the most egregious so i will focus on that article for the sake of expedience.

The headline read: 'A real-life Mr Darcy... or a misguided clown? Boyfriend "hijacks" his girlfriend's performance so he can propose in the hopes of creating a viral social media moment'

The article then went on to claim that I was part of a trend that saw men 'upstaging their beloved's biggest moments' in order to create a viral social media moment'.

The article also received over 250 comments most of which criticised me as 'a clown,' 'an idiot,' 'a creep' and criticized me for proposing for Facebook 'likes.'

To be clear: I am not an active social media user. I did not make any posts across any social media platforms apart from changing my relationship status on Facebook to engaged.

Whilst I saw the humour in the whole situation, my new fiancé was very upset. She considers the proposal as the perfect way for me to have asked and we were both enormously excited and full of positive feelings about being engaged, but this has soured the occasion.

The article was published online on Friday. On Saturday I wrote to the editor of the Daily Mail explaining how I felt the article breached several points on the Editor's code of practice stated by IPSO and also entered into defamation territory.

As of this morning they have removed any mention of my intentions being to go 'viral,' and also removed the description of me as a 'misguided clown' from the headline as a 'gesture of goodwill,' as the Editor put it. She also mentioned that she would not be removing the word 'hijack' as I took over the performance for my own purposes.

I explained that this was not a satisfactory resolution as the amendments would not be seen by those who have already seen the article. It is clear to me that such an article loses most of its traffic after the first day or so, so amendments to an old article is not really taking accountability for bad journalism. It also offers no recompense to myself or my partner as subjects/victims of the article.

I also argued that as it did not take place during the actual performance and as it was orchestrated by the Director himself it was not a 'hijacking' (can someone hijack their own car?)

Her latest response maintains that the use of the word 'hijack' was justifiable as I took over the performance for my own purposes. However she has said that she would be willing to change the reference to the word and would consider that 'full and final settlement of the matter.' I have not yet replied.

My issues are twofold: Firstly, the article breached several points on the editors code of practice. I consider the retractions to be an admission of this, however they are not a satisfactory resolution. At no point have we been apologised to which I believe is obligatory. Whilst the article has been amended it's still remains as painting and negative spin on me claiming that I was 'hogging the limelight.' I believe my best course of action on this point is to make a complaint to IPSO who have sent they are happy to carry out an investigation.

My second issue, and the reason I am posting here is the defamation aspect. IPSO have told me they cannot help me in seeking compensation or advising on legal matters; they are merely there to uphold the Editor's code.

As far as my understanding goes under English law defamation is considered to be a false published statement about a named or identifiable person which either causes them loss of income, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. I was named and my picture was featured. The statement that I had done it for viral reasons was false and backed up by no evidence. The retraction of this is almost an admission that it is false. And finally, the comments underneath the article are evidence that after reading the article reasonable people thought worse of me (if we can call Daily Mail readers reasonable people).

Once again, sorry for the long post. My main aim here is that the Daily Mail and other media outlets be held accountable and such journalists think twice before treating their subjects with such disregard. Any assistance or advice anyone could offer would be much appreciated.

Edit: I should mention that in her correspondence the editor stated that they 'cannot agree that the report was defamatory'

TLDR: Proposed to my girlfriend. Daily Mail put a false and negative spin on the story. I'd like to know if I have a leg to stand on.