UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on June 11, 2016, 01:15:15 AM
-
Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins says Sun banned her from writing about Madeleine McCann.
(http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wp-content/themes/overcast/img/press-gazette-logo.png)
By Dominic Ponsford
10 June 2016
Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins has claimed she was banned from writing about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann when she had a column in The Sun newspaper.
(http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/styles/node_image/public/katiehopkins.png)
And she has praised the Mail for being “brave” enough to let her tackle difficult subjects.
Speaking on the latest Media Focus podcast she talked about the February 2016 Mail Online column in which she said Madeleine’s parents were partly to blame for her disappearance.
On being one of Mail Online’s two paid columnists, along with Piers Morgan, she said: “The audience we pull on some of the stuff we write is off the scale. They are brave.
“The Madeleine McCann article I wrote, nobody would touch that. In other papers I’ve worked for I was never allowed to write about that topic.
“The Mail will back you and they will provide the legal support that will allow you that freedom. Everyone else is terrified of compliance, terrified of legal costs and terrified of their own shadow.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-online-columnist-katie-hopkins-says-sun-banned-her-from-writing-about-madeleine-mccann/
54
-
She has found the magic formula for keeping her name in the limelight and the salary cheques arriving in the bank.
Must be at least one wannabe out there who is kicking herself for running around with a video camera having doors slammed in her face as she watches the Hopkins masterclass in operation.
-
Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.
The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.
If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.
-
Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.
The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.
If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.
the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.
-
the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.
they paid thousands an thousands on lawyers
.they put themselves in the arena ...and have to accept what comes with it that....
we don't
-
Whatever you think of Katie Hopkins she has made it plain that only stories supportive of the McCanns will be printed by The Sun.
The media seem unable to strike any balance. In the McCann case they were accused of libel. Their response has been to print only one side of the story ever since.
If that happened in one case it must happen with other, more important matters. It's clear that freedom of speech by the media has been compromised in the UK.
Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs. What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"
-
Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs. What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"
Out comes the standard cliche .....................
' and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?" '
Katie Hopkins was criticizing the behaviour of the mccanns which placed Madeleine and her siblings in jeopardy in the first place.
Which part of that do you not understand ?
-
the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.
Katie Hopkins wrote a story about the McCanns in The Mail online which wasn't libelous, but The Sun refused to let her write on the subject at all. It couldn't have been fear of the laws of libel, so there must have been another reason for The Sun's decision.
Thank you for your opinion on what is or is not libel in various countries, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread which is about a certain newspaper allegedly stifling freedom of speech.
As Katie Hopkins has shown, it's possible to write from an alternative stance on the case without either libeling the McCanns or calling them liars. Why you assume any story not supporting their position automatically involves calling them liars is not clear, sorry.
In the lower court judgement only two fifths of their claim against Amaral was granted. That's an example of a story that wouldn't be libelous, but I don't recall it being reported.
-
Out comes the standard cliche .....................
' and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?" '
Katie Hopkins was criticizing the behaviour of the mccanns which placed Madeleine and her siblings in jeopardy in the first place.
Which part of that do you not understand ?
All Katie Hopkins did was blow on the ashes of the 'they left them alone' to cause a flame and then an inferno, against the McCann's, because she knew that the readers held the belief that the McCann's were wrong to leave the children, and they were, it was the first thing I said when I heard about the case, why did they leave the children alone.
The McCann's however came out and openly said they were wrong, that they can never forgive themselves, and I think losing a child is enough of a punishment, it's not something that arresting them and throwing them in jail is going to correct is it? They are tortured day in day out and no amount of backlash from the public is going to change that all it does is cause more pain for which I can see no need for, it's like knocking at their door and saying 'it's your fault' every day, why would you want to do that, only someone with a sadistic mentally would.
What Katie Hopkins did was to get HERSELF in the papers, to get HERSELF noticed, she doesn't care about what misery she causes anyone she is selfish and money orientated.
-
Of course freedom of speech in th media has been compromised - ever since the mass media was invented, fgs. What sort of articles would you like to be reading in the media about this case, and how do you think this would help to achieve "Justice For Maddie?"
I agree. Although the law upholds freedom of speech it's never really existed until the internet emerged. Truthful well researched articles would be a refreshing change.
I don't think we're discussing 'Justice for Maddie' on this thread, we're discussing possible self-censorship by The Sun.
-
Katie Hopkins wrote a story about the McCanns in The Mail online which wasn't libelous, but The Sun refused to let her write on the subject at all. It couldn't have been fear of the laws of libel, so there must have been another reason for The Sun's decision.
Thank you for your opinion on what is or is not libel in various countries, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread which is about a certain newspaper allegedly stifling freedom of speech.
As Katie Hopkins has shown, it's possible to write from an alternative stance on the case without either libeling the McCanns or calling them liars. Why you assume any story not supporting their position automatically involves calling them liars is not clear, sorry.
In the lower court judgement only two fifths of their claim against Amaral was granted. That's an example of a story that wouldn't be libelous, but I don't recall it being reported.
no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers
-
no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers
What reason can you give for The Sun allegedly banning Katie Hopkins from giving her opinion? Can they not afford the same legal advice as The Mail, do you think?
-
What reason can you give for The Sun allegedly banning Katie Hopkins from giving her opinion? Can they not afford the same legal advice as The Mail, do you think?
The Sun has said they support the McCann's, so why would they want someone like Katie Hopkins writing a bitchy column?
-
no newspapers are stifling freedom of speech...you have no evidence of that...Price mentions the fear of legal action...it is the law that governs freedom of speech not the newspapers
What did the recent judgement in Portugal say dave ?
-
The Sun has said they support the McCann's, so why would they want someone like Katie Hopkins writing a bitchy column?
oh how naive.... .we are talking about the sun here ....
-
The Sun has said they support the McCann's, so why would they want someone like Katie Hopkins writing a bitchy column?
Thank you Lace. You have just agreed with me that it wasn't fear of the libel laws which led The Sun to allegedly forbid Katie Hopkins to write about her opinion of the case.
-
the mccanns are not being protected by newspapers but by the law of libel and quite rightly so IMO. Amarals book would have been deemed libellous in the US ...a country renowned for free speech.
You keep saying this but have yet to provide any evidence it is the case.
Except saying "libel per se" which seems to be taking over from "ex parte" as the latest "Excalibur" word.
So provide proof of what you say.
-
All Katie Hopkins did was blow on the ashes of the 'they left them alone' to cause a flame and then an inferno, against the McCann's, because she knew that the readers held the belief that the McCann's were wrong to leave the children, and they were, it was the first thing I said when I heard about the case, why did they leave the children alone.
The McCann's however came out and openly said they were wrong, that they can never forgive themselves, and I think losing a child is enough of a punishment, it's not something that arresting them and throwing them in jail is going to correct is it? They are tortured day in day out and no amount of backlash from the public is going to change that all it does is cause more pain for which I can see no need for, it's like knocking at their door and saying 'it's your fault' every day, why would you want to do that, only someone with a sadistic mentally would.
What Katie Hopkins did was to get HERSELF in the papers, to get HERSELF noticed, she doesn't care about what misery she causes anyone she is selfish and money orientated.
Could you please give the quote from the McCanns when they said that what they did was wrong and that they can never forgive themselves, because I must have missed those statements somehow. Or is it an urban myth? I do remember them claiming that they were told that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.
-
You keep saying this but have yet to provide any evidence it is the case.
Except saying "libel per se" which seems to be taking over from "ex parte" as the latest "Excalibur" word.
So provide proof of what you say.
Good points.
Let's hear davel's cite as to why Amara's thesis or book would be libelous in America.
-
You keep saying this but have yet to provide any evidence it is the case.
Except saying "libel per se" which seems to be taking over from "ex parte" as the latest "Excalibur" word.
So provide proof of what you say.
Not to mention that the US is made up of States whose libel laws differ. So we need to know how the 'US' can be referred to as a whole entity also.
-
Could you please give the quote from the McCanns when they said that what they did was wrong and that they can never forgive themselves, because I must have missed those statements somehow. Or is it an urban myth? I do remember them claiming that they were told that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.
There are many examples all of which have been posted before. Here is one of them.
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will''
A clear admission of their own failure to keep their daughter safe and how they will never stop feeling guilty about it.
Although no doubt every word will be 'worried 'and picked over like a dog's bone by some until they have convinced themselves that it means the complete opposite of what it clearly does.
IMO
-
There are many examples all of which have been posted before. Here is one of them.
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will''
A clear admission of their own failure to keep their daughter safe and how they will never stop feeling guilty about it.
Although no doubt every word will be 'worried 'and picked over like a dog's bone by some until they have convinced themselves that it means the complete opposite of what it clearly does.
IMO
Qualified by the 'Whatever' bit. They have never acknowledged that they made a bad decision. When they do they admit it only 'with hindsight'. Many people think foresight was seriously lacking. Most parents feel guilt 'in their own eyes' if something happens to their children. Usually it's unfounded. In this case it isn't, but it's inferred in that statement.
-
oh how naive.... .we are talking about the sun here ....
and?
-
Could you please give the quote from the McCanns when they said that what they did was wrong and that they can never forgive themselves, because I must have missed those statements somehow. Or is it an urban myth? I do remember them claiming that they were told that their actions were within the bounds of responsible parenting.
They have said it numerous times, you must have selective vision.
-
Thank you Lace. You have just agreed with me that it wasn't fear of the libel laws which led The Sun to allegedly forbid Katie Hopkins to write about her opinion of the case.
You would have read the letter the Sun sent a poster on JH forum about calling people trolls, they said in that that they support the McCann's.
-
They have said it numerous times, you must have selective vision.
The one that sticks in my mind is Kate's "our mistake, if that what you'd call it".
-
The one that sticks in my mind is Kate's "our mistake, if that what you'd call it".
What would you call it?
-
and?
and .......obviously you don't know the sun reputation 8**8:/:
-
What would you call it?
What I'd call it isn't important. The fact that Kate, many months after Madeleine's disappearance, couldn't even fully admit that their decision to leave the children alone was a huge mistake is.
-
You would have read the letter the Sun sent a poster on JH forum about calling people trolls, they said in that that they support the McCann's.
Nope. I worked it out all by myself. @)(++(*
-
Nope. I worked it out all by myself. @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Can anyone offer an explanation of exactly what expertise Katie Hopkins has that makes her an expert on missing children and how she hopes for Madeleine McCann to benefit and profit from having the Hopkins' opinions printed in the press?
As I see it there are three beneficiaries from her latest 'controversial' opinions...
- the main one being Ms Hopkins herself who has built a persona on her supposed notoriety and shameless opportunism ... and just being downright nasy
- the MAIL which is not averse to making a bob or two without much effort
- those who have an interest in appearing in tabloid comment sections to express dislike for the parents of a missing child for the mistake of leaving her less than two minutes distance away ~ but always neglect to mention any criticism whatsoever of the kidnapper some refusing to believe there was one
-
Can anyone offer an explanation of exactly what expertise Katie Hopkins has that makes her an expert on missing children and how she hopes for Madeleine McCann to benefit and profit from having the Hopkins' opinions printed in the press?
As I see it there are three beneficiaries from her latest 'controversial' opinions...
- the main one being Ms Hopkins herself who has built a persona on her supposed notoriety and shameless opportunism ... and just being downright nasy
- the MAIL which is not averse to making a bob or two without much effort
- those who have an interest in appearing in tabloid comment sections to express dislike for the parents of a missing child for the mistake of leaving her less than two minutes distance away ~ but always neglect to mention any criticism whatsoever of the kidnapper some refusing to believe there was one
For my part I would condemn anyone or any entity which seeks to make money out of Madeleine's disappearance.
-
I agree. Although the law upholds freedom of speech it's never really existed until the internet emerged. Truthful well researched articles would be a refreshing change.
I don't think we're discussing 'Justice for Maddie' on this thread, we're discussing possible self-censorship by The Sun.
The problem is your "truthful" doesn't necessarily correspond with my "truthful" or the actual facts, and you can bet your bottom dollar any truthful article which doesn't draw conclusions that you agree with, would no doubt be dismissed out of hand as McCann propaganda. It's only true if it is critical (or accusatory) in your eyes, ain't that so?
-
Personal attacks and comments intended to invoke a less than favourable response will cease now.
Admin
-
You keep saying this but have yet to provide any evidence it is the case.
Except saying "libel per se" which seems to be taking over from "ex parte" as the latest "Excalibur" word.
So provide proof of what you say.
contrary to what you say I have posted definitions of libel per se several times....no doubt next week someone else will be demanding the cite again and accusing me of not providing anything to support the claim
-
Katie Hopkins wrote a story about the McCanns in The Mail online which wasn't libelous, but The Sun refused to let her write on the subject at all. It couldn't have been fear of the laws of libel, so there must have been another reason for The Sun's decision.
Thank you for your opinion on what is or is not libel in various countries, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread which is about a certain newspaper allegedly stifling freedom of speech.
As Katie Hopkins has shown, it's possible to write from an alternative stance on the case without either libeling the McCanns or calling them liars. Why you assume any story not supporting their position automatically involves calling them liars is not clear, sorry.
In the lower court judgement only two fifths of their claim against Amaral was granted. That's an example of a story that wouldn't be libelous, but I don't recall it being reported.
#it is not about a newspaper stifling freedom of speech it is about obeying the law in this country. You would have to be more precise about what opinion hopkins wants to express before condemning the sun for not supporting it....I am not allowed to say ...all ******** people are ugly and stupid...not that i would want to but some people see this as being unable to express their opinion.
-
contrary to what you say I have posted definitions of libel per se several times....no doubt next week someone else will be demanding the cite again and accusing me of not providing anything to support the claim
I have asked you how "libel per se" would affect the publication of Sr Amaral's book in the USA . As I recall I asked specifically in reference to Montana Law and Rhode Island Law. No response has been forthcoming.
Your contention seems to be "Excalibur"! it's libel per se end of story without explanation.
"However, many states no longer recognize this short-cut to recovery. In many cases, plaintiffs must be prepared to plead and prove actual damages when raising a claim of defamation—notwithstanding that such a claim may fall within a traditional category of per se liability".
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/spring2014-0513-defamation-prepare-plead-prove-actual-damages.html
-
Please keep to topic under discussion. If anyone wants to discuss a new topic please great a new thread. TY
-
I have asked you how "libel per se" would affect the publication of Sr Amaral's book in the USA . As I recall I asked specifically in reference to Montana Law and Rhode Island Law. No response has been forthcoming.
Your contention seems to be "Excalibur"! it's libel per se end of story without explanation.
"However, many states no longer recognize this short-cut to recovery. In many cases, plaintiffs must be prepared to plead and prove actual damages when raising a claim of defamation—notwithstanding that such a claim may fall within a traditional category of per se liability".
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/spring2014-0513-defamation-prepare-plead-prove-actual-damages.html
if you read and understand the whole article you will see what I have claimed is correct
-
The Sun printed the story where sharon osborne criticised the mcCanns so it looks as though hopkions is talking her usual rubbish in order to get herself noticed and posters have fell for it. For the past two days my local petro; staion has been giving away free copies of the sun.....no one seems interested
-
The Sun printed the story where sharon osborne criticised the mcCanns so it looks as though hopkions is talking her usual rubbish in order to get herself noticed and posters have fell for it. For the past two days my local petro; staion has been giving away free copies of the sun.....no one seems interested
More accurately, more and more people are sick to death of the mccanns bleating, and 'feel sorry for us act'.
Good on her for what she said about the mccanns.
I disagree with a lot of what she says, but if she had no positive responses from the public, she would be unemployed.
You can hear her on LBC tomorrow from 10 am until midday.
-
More accurately, more and more people are sick to death of the mccanns bleating, and 'feel sorry for us act'.
Good on her for what she said about the mccanns.
I disagree with a lot of what she says, but if she had no positive responses from the public, she would be unemployed.
You can hear her on LBC tomorrow from 10 am until midday.
I really don't understand why people want to be so nasty and cruel towards the mcCanns....i wish someone could explain it to me
-
I really don't understand why people want to be so nasty and cruel towards the mcCanns....i wish someone could explain it to me
The mccanns have milked it for years since the Express libel trial, and no one until recently has dared question them in the media.
Tell me davel why the UK and Portuguese tax payers should pay for the mistakes of the mccanns, whilst they have not dug into their own pockets to pay for their 'responsible parenting skills' ?
-
if you read and understand the whole article you will see what I have claimed is correct
Refresh our memories.
What was it you said that was correct?
-
The mccanns have milked it for years since the Express libel trial, and no one until recently has dared question them in the media.
Tell me davel why the UK and Portuguese tax payers should pay for the mistakes of the mccanns, whilst they have not dug into their own pockets to pay for their 'responsible parenting skills' ?
Quite simply it is up to the authorities to investigate maddies disappearance
-
Quite simply it is up to the authorities to investigate maddies disappearance
They have, and they have found nothing.
Do keep up.
-
Here is an article about the author of the blog.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/08/zelo-street-tim-fenton-blogging-twitter
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/3/6/1425662223744/ff01d7c3-de02-4547-a651-b681c699ff3f-2060x1236.jpeg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=02a57ebcd2bb57886d025424b6d34da6)
Zelo Street’s Tim Fenton: ‘I’m not on the field of play, I’m just observing.’ Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian.
-
Here is an article about the author of the blog.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/08/zelo-street-tim-fenton-blogging-twitter
If it isn't anonymous then you may restate it.
-
Can anyone offer an explanation of exactly what expertise Katie Hopkins has that makes her an expert on missing children and how she hopes for Madeleine McCann to benefit and profit from having the Hopkins' opinions printed in the press?
As I see it there are three beneficiaries from her latest 'controversial' opinions...
- the main one being Ms Hopkins herself who has built a persona on her supposed notoriety and shameless opportunism ... and just being downright nasy
- the MAIL which is not averse to making a bob or two without much effort
- those who have an interest in appearing in tabloid comment sections to express dislike for the parents of a missing child for the mistake of leaving her less than two minutes distance away ~ but always neglect to mention any criticism whatsoever of the kidnapper some refusing to believe there was one
I don't recall Katie Hopkins claiming any expertise in missing children. Neither do I recall her suggesting that anything she said would help Madeleine McCann, so I don't know why you're asking those questions? Are they rhetorical like Alfie's?
Katie Hopkins gave her opinion on the parent's childcare arrangements, that's all. Many agree with her but for some reason the media are reluctant to report on it, even though it's clearly not libelous.
We have had nine years of media criticism of the vile 'kidnapper' and of sympathy for the negligent parents. It's about time another viewpoint was allowed into the media imo.
-
Saturday, 11 June 2016
Why Katie Hopkins Left The Sun
By Tim Fenton
It has been one of those endlessly fascinating questions - why did pro-am motormouth Katie Hopkins and the Murdoch Sun part company? Her contract was not renewed, which was most convenient for the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, but apart from the thought that her witterings were too toxic even for the paper of Kelvin McFilth, there was little to go on.
Viewers may want to look away now
But now the eternally unrepentant Ms Hopkins has shed some light on the reason she and the Super Soaraway Currant Bun went their separate ways. In an article in Press Gazette, where she wheels out the old one about "I articulate views that a lot of people feel but feel that they can no longer say", she identifies the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as the one subject that neither the Sun, nor any other publication bar Mail Online, would allow her to broach.
This tells us several things not just about the sensitivities of Sun editorial staff - perhaps you thought they didn't have any - but also about the way the paper is put together nowadays, and the dangers in mentioning the McCann case.
Ms Hopkins has exhibited a tendency not merely to political incorrectness, but to give offence for what appears to be the sheer hell of it, although this may just be the disconnect between her world and the real one. Zelo Street has previously mused on the thought that some Sun pundits were not having their copy fact checked (pace Louise Mensch), and the possibility of Hatey Katey dropping the Murdoch doggies in the poo was clearly something about which they were uneasy.
Worse, most of those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet have already overstepped the defamation line on the McCann case. So the nervousness is entirely understandable.
On top of that, there is the danger of disturbing the army of conspiracy theorists, trolls, oddballs and other assembled weirdos who prey on cases like the McCann disappearance. The pile-on from this motley convocation is something never to be forgotten.
But perhaps the most obvious reason the Sun would rather not discuss the McCann case is that there is very little of use to be gained by raking it over yet again. Katie Hopkins may have had a huge response to her latest rant on the subject, but the unedifying spectacle of a righteous and intolerant loudmouth putting the boot in on a couple who have already suffered years of torment was not one that even the Murdoch was prepared to entertain.
Whether Ms Hopkins gets that, I somehow doubt. But most human beings do - all too well.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-katie-hopkins-left-sun.html
8((()*/ 8@??)(
-
Saturday, 11 June 2016
Why Katie Hopkins Left The Sun
By Tim Fenton
It has been one of those endlessly fascinating questions - why did pro-am motormouth Katie Hopkins and the Murdoch Sun part company? Her contract was not renewed, which was most convenient for the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, but apart from the thought that her witterings were too toxic even for the paper of Kelvin McFilth, there was little to go on.
Viewers may want to look away now
But now the eternally unrepentant Ms Hopkins has shed some light on the reason she and the Super Soaraway Currant Bun went their separate ways. In an article in Press Gazette, where she wheels out the old one about "I articulate views that a lot of people feel but feel that they can no longer say", she identifies the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as the one subject that neither the Sun, nor any other publication bar Mail Online, would allow her to broach.
This tells us several things not just about the sensitivities of Sun editorial staff - perhaps you thought they didn't have any - but also about the way the paper is put together nowadays, and the dangers in mentioning the McCann case.
Ms Hopkins has exhibited a tendency not merely to political incorrectness, but to give offence for what appears to be the sheer hell of it, although this may just be the disconnect between her world and the real one. Zelo Street has previously mused on the thought that some Sun pundits were not having their copy fact checked (pace Louise Mensch), and the possibility of Hatey Katey dropping the Murdoch doggies in the poo was clearly something about which they were uneasy.
Worse, most of those who scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet have already overstepped the defamation line on the McCann case. So the nervousness is entirely understandable.
On top of that, there is the danger of disturbing the army of conspiracy theorists, trolls, oddballs and other assembled weirdos who prey on cases like the McCann disappearance. The pile-on from this motley convocation is something never to be forgotten.
But perhaps the most obvious reason the Sun would rather not discuss the McCann case is that there is very little of use to be gained by raking it over yet again. Katie Hopkins may have had a huge response to her latest rant on the subject, but the unedifying spectacle of a righteous and intolerant loudmouth putting the boot in on a couple who have already suffered years of torment was not one that even the Murdoch was prepared to entertain.
Whether Ms Hopkins gets that, I somehow doubt. But most human beings do - all too well.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-katie-hopkins-left-sun.html
8((()*/ 8@??)(
Same old mantra from a McCann supporter.
Perhaps Mr. Fenton should deal with actions of a group of parents who left their children to fend for themselves, whilst they consumed alcoholic drinks and ate.
%£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
Sorry about that Alfredo. Me and the dog got caught in a freak downpour so couldn't post this sooner. I removed the first post as I hadn't recognised the blogger as Tim Fenton formerly of the BBC.
-
Sorry about that Alfredo. Me and the dog got caught in a freak downpour so couldn't post this sooner. I removed the first post as I hadn't recognised the blogger as Tim Fenton formerly of the BBC.
It's a different Tim Fenton (see Guardian article) but thanks anyway.
-
It's a different Tim Fenton (see Guardian article) but thanks anyway.
Glad we got that sorted.
(http://www.timfenton.co.uk/timfenton/tim.JPG)
The other Tim Fenton
Former BBC journalist Tim Fenton is an independent consultant specialising in communications.
He is a first-class print and broadcast journalist with a broad range of management skills and experience, whose insight into the latest developments in the communications industry is now in regular demand by the commercial and public sectors, and academia.
Winter '12/13 projects include an independence and impartiality learning programme for the BBC's College of Journalism and a political reporting initiative aimed at Commonwealth countries.
Tim started his career as a journalist and worked as a BBC Political Correspondent on radio and tv, later becoming Managing Editor of BBC News Online. He holds an MBA from Bradford University.
Tim works on his own, as an associate of a number of established consultant providers or with an ad hoc team drawn from his own professional network.
http://www.timfenton.co.uk
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tim-fenton-4590655
-
Sorry about that Alfredo. Me and the dog got caught in a freak downpour so couldn't post this sooner. I removed the first post as I hadn't recognised the blogger as Tim Fenton formerly of the BBC.
I think Alfies one is a trainspotter from Crewe actually. No claim to fame at all.
-
I think Alfies one is a trainspotter from Crewe actually. No claim to fame at all.
@)(++(*
And a bit of a knob as well if you research a bit
KH wrote for the Press Gazzette, not your daily read for most of the population , her piece was meant for other journalists and other professionals, and interested train spotting political and other bloggers
I personally cant stand alot about the woman but shes done nothing wrong here unless you consider whstleblowng wrong
-
I think Alfies one is a trainspotter from Crewe actually. No claim to fame at all.
@)(++(* Perhaps you could tell us why being famous should be relevant when it comes to passing comment on Katie Hopkins?
-
@)(++(* Perhaps you could tell us why being famous should be relevant when it comes to passing comment on Katie Hopkins?
Same question goes for objections to KH passing comment on the Mccanns or telling how she wasnt allowed to
-
@)(++(*
And a bit of a knob as well if you research a bit
KH wrote for the Press Gazzette, not your daily read for most of the population , her piece was meant for other journalists and other professionals, and interested train spotting political and other bloggers
I personally cant stand alot about the woman but shes done nothing wrong here unless you consider whstleblowng wrong
a bit of a knob...I thought libellous posts were not allowed
-
@)(++(* Perhaps you could tell us why being famous should be relevant when it comes to passing comment on Katie Hopkins?
It's you Alfie and I claim my fifty quid !
-
It's you Alfie and I claim my fifty quid !
I beg your pardon?
-
I would have thought Tim's views would have been right up the street of some of our anti-MSM forum contributors....obviously not the views about the "army of conspiracy theorists, trolls, oddballs and other assembled weirdos who prey on cases like the McCann disappearance" but the rest of the stuff he writes, no...?
-
I don't recall Katie Hopkins claiming any expertise in missing children. Neither do I recall her suggesting that anything she said would help Madeleine McCann, so I don't know why you're asking those questions? Are they rhetorical like Alfie's?
Katie Hopkins gave her opinion on the parent's childcare arrangements, that's all. Many agree with her but for some reason the media are reluctant to report on it, even though it's clearly not libelous.
We have had nine years of media criticism of the vile 'kidnapper' and of sympathy for the negligent parents. It's about time another viewpoint was allowed into the media imo.
Even the tabloids report the News. Madeleine McCann's parental childcare arrangements have been general knowledge since the 4th May 2007 so hardly qualify as newsworthy.
It is your opinion that Madeleine's parents were negligent ... please bear that in mind when making statements which could be considered libellous.
-
I haven't followed this case much. Nothing has really changed since 2007 in that there is only one crucial fact that has ever been established and that is Maddie went missing. The rest is gossip speculation and drama. Its all very strange
-
I haven't followed this case much. Nothing has really changed since 2007 in that there is only one crucial fact that has ever been established and that is Maddie went missing. The rest is gossip speculation and drama. Its all very strange
Welcome david, many thnk that, but it isnt true that everythng apart frm her being mssing is speculation gossip or drama
For starters we have thousands on thousands of police files
But youre right the whole case at all levels is strange and not near any other missing child case in comparison
-
I haven't followed this case much. Nothing has really changed since 2007 in that there is only one crucial fact that has ever been established and that is Maddie went missing. The rest is gossip speculation and drama. Its all very strange
Strange and sad. I think that...
1st impression - What a terrible nightmare.
2nd impression - Why did two intelligent people behave so stupidly?
3rd impression - Is it now all about money and appearing on "Lorraine"?
-
Strange and sad. I think that...
1st impression - What a terrible nightmare.
2nd impression - Why did two intelligent people behave so stupidly?
3rd impression - Is it now all about money and appearing on "Lorraine"?
Rofl
-
@)(++(* Perhaps you could tell us why being famous should be relevant when it comes to passing comment on Katie Hopkins?
I just meant he has no particular expertise so I don't quite see why he's being quoted. Or are you planning on finding every McCann supporter on the web and quoting them on here?
-
I just meant he has no particular expertise so I don't quite see why he's being quoted. Or are you planning on finding every McCann supporter on the web and quoting them on here?
LOL. Katie Hopkins doesn't have any particular expertise but that doesn't stop some people on here quoting her articles from the Daily Mail, so tell me why I shouldn't post Tim Fenton's fair comment about Hatey Katie?
-
katies daughter may not be able to have children i saw the article in the daily mail as i couldnt either i feel bad for her daughter
-
LOL. Katie Hopkins doesn't have any particular expertise but that doesn't stop some people on here quoting her articles from the Daily Mail, so tell me why I shouldn't post Tim Fenton's fair comment about Hatey Katie?
At least she gets paid for her opinions and has a readership.
-
At least she gets paid for her opinions and has a readership.
people pay to read the sun...it has a readership...much of it is rubbish
-
At least she gets paid for her opinions and has a readership.
Why should being paid to spout hateful crap make her opinion any more credible or important than someone who chooses to write about something he feels strongly about? It's weird one minute you're down on the MSM saying we can't trust a word they tell us, now you're down on bloggers shining a light on the MSM...very, very odd.
-
Why should being paid to spout hateful crap make her opinion any more credible or important than someone who chooses to write about something he feels strongly about? It's weird one minute you're down on the MSM saying we can't trust a word they tell us, now you're down on bloggers shining a light on the MSM...very, very odd.
And bloggers shining a light on the darker corners of this case ?
-
Hopkins is critical of the McCanns childcare
But she thinks Maddie was abducted
Another vote for abduction
-
And bloggers shining a light on the darker corners of this case ?
What about them?
-
What about them?
Do you find them credible ?
-
Do you find them credible ?
you'll have to be a bit more specific than that. Some have obviously put in a huge amount of work and come at this case with an objective, open mind (Heri for example), some are clearly biased and let their unbridled hatred get in the way, and so their credibility is often somewhat compromised (Stud Muffin for example).
-
Hatred...a muchbandied emotive term, so pathetic as well
How can anyone personally hate anyone they dont know...how can anyone call lapse childcare criticism hatred
Some people need to have a word with themselves and fine tune their arguments if they want to be taken seriously
Eta
And the same goes to the ones that spout nonsensically "youre jealous" of the mccanns
-
Hatred...a muchbandied emotive term, so pathetic as well
How can anyone personally hate anyone they dont know...how can anyone call lapse childcare criticism hatred
Some people need to have a word with themselves and fine tune their arguments if they want to be taken seriously
Eta
And the same goes to the ones that spout nonsensically "youre jealous" of the mccanns
I agree. I have seen instant dislike and character attacks on here of anyone who dares to criticise or question the McCanns. That happens whether the person is in the public eye or just an anonymous poster.
It serves no purpose either. No-one cares what McCann supporters think of Amaral, Katie Hopkins, Katie Price et al. When other posters are attacked it often seems to happen in an attempt to silence or deflect debates, or because the supporter has run out of arguments. It's very transparent.
-
you'll have to be a bit more specific than that. Some have obviously put in a huge amount of work and come at this case with an objective, open mind (Heri for example), some are clearly biased and let their unbridled hatred get in the way, and so their credibility is often somewhat compromised (Stud Muffin for example).
So basically anyone who agrees with you is okay. Have I got that right ?
-
I agree. I have seen instant dislike and character attacks on here of anyone who dares to criticise or question the McCanns. That happens whether the person is in the public eye or just an anonymous poster.
It serves no purpose either. No-one cares what McCann supporters think of Amaral, Katie Hopkins, Katie Price et al. When other posters are attacked it often seems to happen in an attempt to silence or deflect debates, or because the supporter has run out of arguments. It's very transparent.
Well said. I also notice that a search is done for info to discredit the person rather than focus on the issue
As if if anyone says something wrong once it makes everythng they say later equally wrong, totally illogical
-
The topic is Katie Hopkins and not Tannerman! TY
-
The topic is Katie Hopkins and not Tannerman! TY
Well who cares about Katie Hopkins ?
I always liked the Osbornes but Sharon obviously doesn't know the facts.
-
Well who cares about Katie Hopkins ?
I always liked the Osbornes but Sharon obviously doesn't know the facts.
She commented on the leaving toddlers alone there are no other facts
And she was absolutely right to say its insane to do so, no normal parents do this with their toddlers end of
-
Well who cares about Katie Hopkins ?
I always liked the Osbornes but Sharon obviously doesn't know the facts.
That's a typical non reply. No attempt whatsoever to reply to what the women said. Also incorrect as both of them clearly do know the facts.
-
So basically anyone who agrees with you is okay. Have I got that right ?
I thought the question was about credibility, not about whether individuals are OK or not. I happen to think the argument that the McCanns dunnit cannot be credibly explained. No one has successfully argued completely objectively how, why, when or where in any blog I have ever read. That said everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, and I would argue that Tim Fenton's opinion is just as credible and valid as Hopkins' despite the fact that he is neither paid for his opinions nor a C-list celebrity.
-
That's a typical non reply. No attempt whatsoever to reply to what the women said. Also incorrect as both of them clearly do know the facts.
Sharon Osbourne clearly believes that Madeleine was abducted.
This is an excerpt from what she said during an US show called The Talk - (on Youtube) explaining why she made those comments.
Quote
.............. a case I cited to educate young girls who were not looking at the news when Maddie was taken - cos they were too young..............................
End quote
-
Sharon Osbourne clearly believes that Madeleine was abducted.
This is an excerpt from what she said during an US show called The Talk - (on Youtube) explaining why she made those comments.
Quote
.............. a case I cited to educate young girls who were not looking at the news when Maddie was taken - cos they were too young..............................
End quote
Immaterial, the point being that she was attacked for criticising the McCanns.
-
Sharon Osbourne clearly believes that Madeleine was abducted.
This is an excerpt from what she said during an US show called The Talk - (on Youtube) explaining why she made those comments.
Quote
.............. a case I cited to educate young girls who were not looking at the news when Maddie was taken - cos they were too young..............................
End quote
And the point shewas making to those girls was;
Young children should never ever be left home alone.
A fact that most people know and, surprisingly to some, most people knew before 2007. Not because they feared 'abduction' but because they understood the many other dangers attached to such a practice.
-
Sharon Osbourne clearly believes that Madeleine was abducted.
This is an excerpt from what she said during an US show called The Talk - (on Youtube) explaining why she made those comments.
Quote
.............. a case I cited to educate young girls who were not looking at the news when Maddie was taken - cos they were too young..............................
End quote
Tell me, what does Ms. Osbourne know about the case, other than the mccanns leaving the children alone, whilst they consumed alcohol and ate ?
-
I thought the question was about credibility, not about whether individuals are OK or not. I happen to think the argument that the McCanns dunnit cannot be credibly explained. No one has successfully argued completely objectively how, why, when or where in any blog I have ever read. That said everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, and I would argue that Tim Fenton's opinion is just as credible and valid as Hopkins' despite the fact that he is neither paid for his opinions nor a C-list celebrity.
And I would agree....but really that's not align much, is it ?
-
And I would agree....but really that's not align much, is it ?
come again?
I don't know why you challenged me if you agree with me. Let's not forget it was G-Unit who was suggesting that Katie Hopkins opinion is somehow more valid that Tim Fenton's because she gets paid by the Daily Mail for voicing her hateful opinions and getting her pretty little face on telly occasionally. Challenge her for a change!
-
come again?
I don't know why you challenged me if you agree with me. Let's not forget it was G-Unit who was suggesting that Katie Hopkins opinion is somehow more valid that Tim Fenton's because she gets paid by the Daily Mail for voicing her hateful opinions and getting her pretty little face on telly occasionally. Challenge her for a change!
It's obvious to most people that a columnist in a newspaper has more readers and more influence than some nobody writing his blog. Only someone with an agenda would give them equal weight in my opinion.
-
come again?
I don't know why you challenged me if you agree with me. Let's not forget it was G-Unit who was suggesting that Katie Hopkins opinion is somehow more valid that Tim Fenton's because she gets paid by the Daily Mail for voicing her hateful opinions and getting her pretty little face on telly occasionally. Challenge her for a change!
And you were parading the Fenton fellow in the same way. Are you now saying their opinions hold the same validity?
-
It's obvious to most people that a columnist in a newspaper has more readers and more influence than some nobody writing his blog. Only someone with an agenda would give them equal weight in my opinion.
More influence agreed.
-
And the point shewas making to those girls was;
Young children should never ever be left home alone.
A fact that most people know and, surprisingly to some, most people knew before 2007. Not because they feared 'abduction' but because they understood the many other dangers attached to such a practice.
Groundhog day?
So you keep saying - and as I keep saying - the same people who would not dream of leaving their children alone at home, do for some illogical reason leave their children alone and go to dinner when they are on holiday - and in their thousands too.
One of the main reasons being that it is a service which has been offered by reputable tour operators etc for years on end - without it resulting in any tragedies being reported - to warn folk off - and which has therefore lulled them into a false sense of security.
Like it or not - that is a fact.
Actually I don't completely agree that you shouldn't leave your children asleep and go out for even a minute - as that means even going out into the garden to fetch the washing in after the kids are in bed asleep is wrong. There's good sensible parenting and then there's over anxious paranoi IMO.
AIMHO
-
Groundhog day?
So you keep saying - and as I keep saying - the same people who would not dream of leaving their children alone at home, do for some illogical reason leave their children alone and go to dinner when they are on holiday - and in their thousands too.
One of the main reasons being that it is a service which has been offered by reputable tour operators etc for years on end - without it resulting in any tragedies being reported - to warn folk off - and which has therefore lulled them into a false sense of security.
Like it or not - that is a fact.
Actually I don't completely agree that you shouldn't leave your children asleep and go out for even a minute - as that means even going out into the garden to fetch the washing in after the kids are in bed asleep is wrong. There's good sensible parenting and then there's over anxious paranoi IMO.
AIMHO
Children have been abducted walking to and from school ... does that mean we should march them there only in a supervised crocodile?
Are or were Katie Hopkins' children ever allowed to walk to school or were they ferried there and back each day?
If her garden is big enough to hold a barbecue would she feel insecure about tucking her exhausted children up in bed with the front of the house locked ~ while she and her friends continued their evening outside?
I wonder if she has ever done so?
If she hasn't I'll guarantee many others have.
-
Children have been abducted walking to and from school ... does that mean we should march them there only in a supervised crocodile?
Are or were Katie Hopkins' children ever allowed to walk to school or were they ferried there and back each day?
If her garden is big enough to hold a barbecue would she feel insecure about tucking her exhausted children up in bed with the front of the house locked ~ while she and her friends continued their evening outside?
I wonder if she has ever done so?
If she hasn't I'll guarantee many others have.
The difference with that scenario is the front of the house is secure and they are in sight of the back.
-
And you were parading the Fenton fellow in the same way. Are you now saying their opinions hold the same validity?
I think I already did didn't I?
-
It's obvious to most people that a columnist in a newspaper has more readers and more influence than some nobody writing his blog. Only someone with an agenda would give them equal weight in my opinion.
No one's disputing that are they? But you seem to have shifted the goalposts somewhat. Why?
-
To re-cap: Katie is allowed to spout hateful, incendiary crap on any number of subjects and get paid for it, the rest of us plebs who don't get paid for an opinion are allowed to say exactly what we think of her hateful, incendiary crap. Some of us (Tim Fenton included) put it more eloquently than others, though not everyone will agree with his thoughts on this particular subject. I happen to agree with him and as he put it better than me I quoted his on-topic blog entry here. I didn't expect for one minute that either G-Unit or Faithlilly would enjoy reading it, but tant-pis, if you don't want to hear negative views about the fragrant Ms Hopkins on this forum I strongly suggest you ignore my posts from now on. Hope that's clear now. 8((()*/
-
Groundhog day?
So you keep saying - and as I keep saying - the same people who would not dream of leaving their children alone at home, do for some illogical reason leave their children alone and go to dinner when they are on holiday - and in their thousands too.
One of the main reasons being that it is a service which has been offered by reputable tour operators etc for years on end - without it resulting in any tragedies being reported - to warn folk off - and which has therefore lulled them into a false sense of security.
Like it or not - that is a fact.
Actually I don't completely agree that you shouldn't leave your children asleep and go out for even a minute - as that means even going out into the garden to fetch the washing in after the kids are in bed asleep is wrong. There's good sensible parenting and then there's over anxious paranoi IMO.
AIMHO
I will continue to repeat the truth for as many days as it takes. I did it before Katie Hopkins and Sharon Osborne spoke out and will carry on doing it for as long as others excuse or ignore it.
Which 'reputable tour operators' are you speaking of? This one perhaps?
By Roya Nikkhah12:01AM GMT 30 Jan 2005
Mark Warner, the British holiday company which promotes itself as being family friendly, has been forced to launch an investigation into the standards of its childcare after two of its nannies were sacked for endangering the lives of a group of toddlers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1482383/Holiday-ski-resort-nannies-sacked-for-endangering-toddlers-lives.html
At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml
I haven't searched for information on others but I would be surprised if nothing ever goes wrong. These holidays may be just right for a certain type of person, but they're not for everyone.
-
The difference with that scenario is the front of the house is secure and they are in sight of the back.
Were I a burglar or someone intent on stealing a child I would note the activity at the back of the house; I would be pleased for the overhanging vegetation giving me cover from the road at the front of the house; a dark recessed door to which I had a 'bump' key would be a real bonus if there wasn't a shuttered window which the householder had supposed was for security ... and Bob's your uncle ... I could be in and out of your house before you had burnt another sausage on the grill.
-
To re-cap: Katie is allowed to spout hateful, incendiary crap on any number of subjects and get paid for it, the rest of us plebs who don't get paid for an opinion are allowed to say exactly what we think of her hateful, incendiary crap. Some of us (Tim Fenton included) put it more eloquently than others, though not everyone will agree with his thoughts on this particular subject. I happen to agree with him and as he put it better than me I quoted his on-topic blog entry here. I didn't expect for one minute that either G-Unit or Faithlilly would enjoy reading it, but tant-pis, if you don't want to hear negative views about the fragrant Ms Hopkins on this forum I strongly suggest you ignore my posts from now on. Hope that's clear now. 8((()*/
Silly, very silly.
Reply to Hopkins on Twitter or Facebook Alfie.
-
To re-cap: Katie is allowed to spout hateful, incendiary crap on any number of subjects and get paid for it, the rest of us plebs who don't get paid for an opinion are allowed to say exactly what we think of her hateful, incendiary crap. Some of us (Tim Fenton included) put it more eloquently than others, though not everyone will agree with his thoughts on this particular subject. I happen to agree with him and as he put it better than me I quoted his on-topic blog entry here. I didn't expect for one minute that either G-Unit or Faithlilly would enjoy reading it, but tant-pis, if you don't want to hear negative views about the fragrant Ms Hopkins on this forum I strongly suggest you ignore my posts from now on. Hope that's clear now. 8((()*/
You do realise that you can agree with someone's opinion even though you don't particularly like that person or what they write, don't you Alfie. Indeed I held Ms Hopkins view long before I had even heard of Ms Hopkins.
-
You do realise that you can agree with someone's opinion even though you don't particularly like that person or what they write, don't you Alfie. Indeed I held Ms Hopkins view long before I had even heard of Ms Hopkins.
Well said Faithlily.
Why do so many supporters believe we get our views from Amaral or people like Hopkins ?
-
Well said Faithlily.
Why do so many supporters believe we get our views from Amaral or people like Hopkins ?
&%+((£ Where did they come from, then?
Katie Hopkins has not been a cheerleader for long, and in my opinion wouldn't have jumped on the 'controversial' bandwagon if there hadn't been a bob or two in it for her ... so hardly a role model shaping opinion for the past nine years.
-
&%+((£ Where did they come from, then?
Katie Hopkins has not been a cheerleader for long, and in my opinion wouldn't have jumped on the 'controversial' bandwagon if there hadn't been a bob or two in it for her ... so hardly a role model shaping opinion for the past nine years.
Not one for you to be concerned about then, I presume.
-
You do realise that you can agree with someone's opinion even though you don't particularly like that person or what they write, don't you Alfie. Indeed I held Ms Hopkins view long before I had even heard of Ms Hopkins.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
-
Well said Faithlily.
Why do so many supporters believe we get our views from Amaral or people like Hopkins ?
Katie Hopkin's opinion is only significant because she expressed it in a national newspaper. We have her word that The Sun didn't allow her to do it, which they haven't denied as far as I know.
What we don't know is if other newspapers are behaving in the same manner as The Sun. Consequently we don't know if there are other journalists with similar opinions who have also been silenced.
The general population is split on this case so it's a bit much to believe that all journalists share the same opinion of it in my opinion.
Instead of addressing the facts of the case McCann supporters, including the media, seem to prefer demonising those who have doubts. They are sad, unintelligent [ censored word ]s and trolls who lack knowledge and humanity.
That is a rather sweeping judgement to be made about a wide variety of different people who just happen to share the same opinion on one subject. It smacks to me of the 'loony left' accusations scattered about at one time which were clearly an attempt to tar a lot of different people with the same brush. It was just as wrong and one-dimensional as the present attacks.
-
Not one for you to be concerned about then, I presume.
It is very easy to work out that Katie Hopkins may very well have taken the opportunity to use Madeleine McCann's very sad case as a vehicle for her notoriety; it is after all the way she has chosen to make a living.
I made no claims about what motivates others to use Madeleine for whatever purpose ... someone else raised the subject.
Why do you suppose I would wish to stifle discussion about that on what is a discussion forum? Someone makes a statement ... someone else takes it up and runs with it ... as I did in this instance, so of course it is my concern.
Why so negative about this and about many other issues by your use of one sentence 'put downs'?
-
It is very easy to work out that Katie Hopkins may very well have taken the opportunity to use Madeleine McCann's very sad case as a vehicle for her notoriety; it is after all the way she has chosen to make a living.
I made no claims about what motivates others to use Madeleine for whatever purpose ... someone else raised the subject.
Why do you suppose I would wish to stifle discussion about that on what is a discussion forum? Someone makes a statement ... someone else takes it up and runs with it ... as I did in this instance, so of course it is my concern.
Why so negative about this and about many other issues by your use of one sentence 'put downs'?
I prefer short posts and leave lengthy cut & paste jobs to others.
-
Katie Hopkin's opinion is only significant because she expressed it in a national newspaper. We have her word that The Sun didn't allow her to do it, which they haven't denied as far as I know.
What we don't know is if other newspapers are behaving in the same manner as The Sun. Consequently we don't know if there are other journalists with similar opinions who have also been silenced.
The general population is split on this case so it's a bit much to believe that all journalists share the same opinion of it in my opinion.
Instead of addressing the facts of the case McCann supporters, including the media, seem to prefer demonising those who have doubts. They are sad, unintelligent [ censored word ] and trolls who lack knowledge and humanity.
That is a rather sweeping judgement to be made about a wide variety of different people who just happen to share the same opinion on one subject. It smacks to me of the 'loony left' accusations scattered about at one time which were clearly an attempt to tar a lot of different people with the same brush. It was just as wrong and one-dimensional as the present attacks.
What is the current news about Madeleine McCann's case as opposed to the self gratifying printed opinions of the new McCann 'expert' who has grabbed the internet headlines.
Katie Hopkins certainly knows her target audience ... but she knows nothing about Madeleine's case ~ how it is progressing ~ or with any opinion at all about how to progress it or any other missing person's case for that matter.
Nor does she care. imo
-
Katie Hopkin's opinion is only significant because she expressed it in a national newspaper. We have her word that The Sun didn't allow her to do it, which they haven't denied as far as I know.
What we don't know is if other newspapers are behaving in the same manner as The Sun. Consequently we don't know if there are other journalists with similar opinions who have also been silenced.
The general population is split on this case so it's a bit much to believe that all journalists share the same opinion of it in my opinion.
Instead of addressing the facts of the case McCann supporters, including the media, seem to prefer demonising those who have doubts. They are sad, unintelligent [ censored word ] and trolls who lack knowledge and humanity.
That is a rather sweeping judgement to be made about a wide variety of different people who just happen to share the same opinion on one subject. It smacks to me of the 'loony left' accusations scattered about at one time which were clearly an attempt to tar a lot of different people with the same brush. It was just as wrong and one-dimensional as the present attacks.
What facts about the case have the media not sufficiently addressed in your opinion? The neglect issue has been well covered over the years in a variety of media, perhaps you feel a weekly reminder of their bad parenting in order? Or monthly perhaps? The McCanns dunnit was front page headlines internationally for a few months, resulting in pretty much everyone (myself included) thinking they must be guilty back in September 2007, perhaps you would like a return to those sort of innuendo laden, speculative headlines? If not, what facts do you feel the MSM are neglecting to inform the wider world of these days?
-
Her comment may or may not have merit, but with her columns, she provides a conduit for the public to respond and voice their views. In my opinion, this is a good thing.
-
Well said Faithlily.
Why do so many supporters believe we get our views from Amaral or people like Hopkins ?
A constant source of amusement to some of us.
Maybe it's because they are near Plaistow ?
-
I prefer short posts and leave lengthy cut & paste jobs to others.
You've made that observation on at least one previous occasion.
Myself ... I'm not too averse to short and pithy one liners on occasion ~ Katie Hopkins has made an excellent career for herself by using them on every subject under the sun.
Might I respectfully suggest that you ignore posts containing the "cut & paste jobs" to which you refer if they offend you ... in the interim, forgive me if I continue to remark on one liners which may be of interest to me.
-
You've made that observation on at least one previous occasion.
Myself ... I'm not too averse to short and pithy one liners on occasion ~ Katie Hopkins has made an excellent career for herself by using them on every subject under the sun.
Might I respectfully suggest that you ignore posts containing the "cut & paste jobs" to which you refer if they offend you ... in the interim, forgive me if I continue to remark on one liners which may be of interest to me.
I generally do. ?{)(**
-
I prefer short posts and leave lengthy cut & paste jobs to others.
The cut and paste of Shane Tim Fenton's diatribe being described as "eloquent" was stretching a point a bit.
I suppose compared with Rockfist Rogan, Ginger Nut and The Fat Boy of 4th Remove it is but I don't see him rivaling Raymond Chandler even let alone the Brontes......... &%+((£.
-
What facts about the case have the media not sufficiently addressed in your opinion? The neglect issue has been well covered over the years in a variety of media, perhaps you feel a weekly reminder of their bad parenting in order? Or monthly perhaps? The McCanns dunnit was front page headlines internationally for a few months, resulting in pretty much everyone (myself included) thinking they must be guilty back in September 2007, perhaps you would like a return to those sort of innuendo laden, speculative headlines? If not, what facts do you feel the MSM are neglecting to inform the wider world of these days?
What a lot of pejorative sounding suggestions! There is no need for 'innuendo laden, speculative headlines', just plain old facts.
As I have pointed out on another thread the lack of factual reporting about the damages trial was conspicuous by it's absence. I didn't see anything which laid out the facts for either judgement. If there was such a report I will apologise of course.
Whatever people think of Katie Hopkins as a person has nothing at all to do with her story, by the way. I'm sure many journalists have agendas when they decide what to write about. As long as they report the facts it really doesn't matter why. Twisting or ignoring the facts is another matter.
-
What a lot of pejorative sounding suggestions! There is no need for 'innuendo laden, speculative headlines', just plain old facts.
(1)As I have pointed out on another thread the lack of factual reporting about the damages trial was conspicuous by it's absence. I didn't see anything which laid out the facts for either judgement. If there was such a report I will apologise of course.
Whatever people think of (2) Katie Hopkins as a person has nothing at all to do with her story, by the way. I'm sure many journalists have agendas when they decide what to write about. As long as they report the facts it really doesn't matter why. Twisting or ignoring the facts is another matter.
1) ...& un biased.
2 ) Marks out of 10. I'd give her one.
-
What a lot of pejorative sounding suggestions! There is no need for 'innuendo laden, speculative headlines', just plain old facts.
As I have pointed out on another thread the lack of factual reporting about the damages trial was conspicuous by it's absence. I didn't see anything which laid out the facts for either judgement. If there was such a report I will apologise of course.
Whatever people think of Katie Hopkins as a person has nothing at all to do with her story, by the way. I'm sure many journalists have agendas when they decide what to write about. As long as they report the facts it really doesn't matter why. Twisting or ignoring the facts is another matter.
TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop. Of far more interest is the spectacle of Hatey Katie sticking the knife into a new victim and drawing fresh blood. You'll just have to rely on the good old PT press for all that factual reportage on the damages trial... @)(++(*
-
What a lot of pejorative sounding suggestions! There is no need for 'innuendo laden, speculative headlines', just plain old facts.
As I have pointed out on another thread the lack of factual reporting about the damages trial was conspicuous by it's absence. I didn't see anything which laid out the facts for either judgement. If there was such a report I will apologise of course.
Whatever people think of Katie Hopkins as a person has nothing at all to do with her story, by the way. I'm sure many journalists have agendas when they decide what to write about. As long as they report the facts it really doesn't matter why. Twisting or ignoring the facts is another matter.
Incidentally, do you really think that what Katie Hopkins did was "report the facts?" Oh dear...
-
Incidentally, do you really think that what Katie Hopkins did was "report the facts?" Oh dear...
The Mccanns left their children by themselves, with infrequent visits, whilst they ate and drank alcoholic drinks.
What part of that was wrong Alfie ? 8)-)))
-
Katie Hopkin's opinion is only significant because she expressed it in a national newspaper. We have her word that The Sun didn't allow her to do it, which they haven't denied as far as I know.
What we don't know is if other newspapers are behaving in the same manner as The Sun. Consequently we don't know if there are other journalists with similar opinions who have also been silenced.
The general population is split on this case so it's a bit much to believe that all journalists share the same opinion of it in my opinion.
Instead of addressing the facts of the case McCann supporters, including the media, seem to prefer demonising those who have doubts. They are sad, unintelligent [ censored word ] and trolls who lack knowledge and humanity.
That is a rather sweeping judgement to be made about a wide variety of different people who just happen to share the same opinion on one subject. It smacks to me of the 'loony left' accusations scattered about at one time which were clearly an attempt to tar a lot of different people with the same brush. It was just as wrong and one-dimensional as the present attacks.
so much of what you say is just your opinion stated as fact. I don't think the general population is split at all...what do you base this on. In my experience most people think the mccanns were wrong to leave the children and maddie was abducted...both hopkins and osborne seem to think this.
as for demonising those who doubt...more rubbish...it is the trolls who think the mcccanns should suffer for the rest of their miserable lives who are demonised and perhaps you can make it clear whether you support this type of post...if you don't then you too may have some sort of problem.
Most sceptics I come accross simply do not understand the evidence...simple as that....you only had to read the messages of support for amaral to show that is true. You yourself put a lot of reliance on twice translated non verbatim statements...that is simply poor reasoning
-
so much of what you say is just your opinion stated as fact. I don't think the general population is split at all...what do you base this on. In my experience most people think the mccanns were wrong to leave the children and maddie was abducted...both hopkins and osborne seem to think this.
as for demonising those who doubt...more rubbish...it is the trolls who think the mcccanns should suffer for the rest of their miserable lives who are demonised and perhaps you can make it clear whether you support this type of post...if you don't then you too may have some sort of problem.
Most sceptics I come accross simply do not understand the evidence...simple as that....you only had to read the messages of support for amaral to show that is true. You yourself put a lot of reliance on twice translated non verbatim statements...that is simply poor reasoning
I think it is more than time for you to cite how much support the mccanns are actually getting, which judging by the comments and voting sections of the Newspapers is very little.
I await your response with CITES.
-
TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop. Of far more interest is the spectacle of Hatey Katie sticking the knife into a new victim and drawing fresh blood. You'll just have to rely on the good old PT press for all that factual reportage on the damages trial... @)(++(*
Did you think it was convoluted Alfie? I found it quite simple to understand myself.
First judgement the McCanns won 2 of 5 claims. Appeal judgement 0 out of 5. Why? Because it all rested on Amaral's so-called professional misconduct. Not on his book and how it damaged the search, nor on the effect of the 'libel' on the McCann children, despite the McCanns saying it was. Is that clear enough?
In a statement issued by their family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, they said: “We are delighted with the judge’s verdict today. We want to emphasise the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
The above quote was in The Guardian, and to be fair there was a fact in the story;
The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
-
I think it is more than time for you to cite how much support the mccanns are actually getting, which judging by the comments and voting sections of the Newspapers is very little.
I await your response with CITES.
If you was my post again you will see I have stated
In my experience
Do keep up
Voting sections of newspapers are not an accurate reflection of public opinion as a whole and anyone who thinks they are needs a lesson in statistics
-
TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop. Of far more interest is the spectacle of Hatey Katie sticking the knife into a new victim and drawing fresh blood. You'll just have to rely on the good old PT press for all that factual reportage on the damages trial... @)(++(*
What is it about supporters and name calling? Isn't it a little childish at your age?
-
Did you think it was convoluted Alfie? I found it quite simple to understand myself.
First judgement the McCanns won 2 of 5 claims. Appeal judgement 0 out of 5. Why? Because it all rested on Amaral's so-called professional misconduct. Not on his book and how it damaged the search, nor on the effect of the 'libel' on the McCann children, despite the McCanns saying it was. Is that clear enough?
In a statement issued by their family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, they said: “We are delighted with the judge’s verdict today. We want to emphasise the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
The above quote was in The Guardian, and to be fair there was a fact in the story;
The court said it was not proven that the allegations made in the book “contributed to hindering, in any way, the course of the investigation” into Madeleine’s disappearance.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
Kindly don't patronise me. What point are you trying to score with this off-topic post?
-
What is it about supporters and name calling? Isn't it a little childish at your age?
No more childish than referring to Kate McCann as "Hotlips" or Clarence as "Pinky" I'm sure you'll agree. Please don't try and pretend that sceptics are above name calling.
-
Apparently 'Hotlips' was a nickname given to Kate at university - I must leave it to your imagination to decide what they were referring to. 8(0(*
-
If you was my post again you will see I have stated
In my experience
Do keep up
Voting sections of newspapers are not an accurate reflection of public opinion as a whole and anyone who thinks they are needs a lesson in statistics
Fascinating.
You ask for cites from others , yet provide very few yourself, just your biased opinion.
By the way, I need no lessons in Stats from you, but I do recommend that you study that part of Maths,before making comments you can't justify.
-
Apparently 'Hotlips' was a nickname given to Kate at university - I must leave it to your imagination to decide what they were referring to. 8(0(*
Major Margaret Houlihan was given the name first I believe.
-
"Jesus had his followers – I have 600,000 followers on Twitter. It’s about leading the way – I am the new Jesus."
No wonder the Sun wanted rid of.
-
If you was my post again you will see I have stated
In my experience
Do keep up
Voting sections of newspapers are not an accurate reflection of public opinion as a whole and anyone who thinks they are needs a lesson in statistics
Which particular lesson would that be ?
-
"Jesus had his followers – I have 600,000 followers on Twitter. It’s about leading the way – I am the new Jesus."
No wonder the Sun wanted rid of.
Following in the steps of John Lennon "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" or whatever.
No doubt a Beatles anorak will correct me.
-
Following in the steps of John Lennon "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" or whatever.
No doubt a Beatles anorak will correct me.
Something God, Jesus & 'the abduction' of Madeleine McCann have in common.
None are real without faith.
-
"Jesus had his followers – I have 600,000 followers on Twitter. It’s about leading the way – I am the new Jesus."
No wonder the Sun wanted rid of.
Yeah, and look how it ended for Him.
Katie Hopkins is basically a "Shock Jock", or the newspaper equivalent of. Nobody really takes her or her silly views seriously, apart from 600,000 like-minded silly sausages who follow her on twitter, and even then most of those probably just follow her for the lulz.
-
No more childish than referring to Kate McCann as "Hotlips" or Clarence as "Pinky" I'm sure you'll agree. Please don't try and pretend that sceptics are above name calling.
And yet more childish nonsense. Have you ever heard the hate that two wrongs do not make a right Alfie?
-
Kindly don't patronise me. What point are you trying to score with this off-topic post?
Just answering your off topic post Alfie.
quote;
'TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop'
-
Fascinating.
You ask for cites from others , yet provide very few yourself, just your biased opinion.
By the way, I need no lessons in Stats from you, but I do recommend that you study that part of Maths,before making comments you can't justify.
Simple statistics question
do you consider the commenters in the national papers as a reasonably accurate cross section of the public
-
Just answering your off topic post Alfie.
quote;
'TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop'
Oh look - a partial quote. Here is my post in full, which does at least reference the thread topic, unlike yours!
"TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop. Of far more interest is the spectacle of Hatey Katie sticking the knife into a new victim and drawing fresh blood. You'll just have to rely on the good old PT press for all that factual reportage on the damages trial... @)(++(*"
-
Major Margaret Houlihan was given the name first I believe.
A rather contradictory character was Major Houlihan..........
Hot Lips Hopkins could work too. houlihan could be quite abrasive.
-
Yeah, and look how it ended for Him.
Katie Hopkins is basically a "Shock Jock", or the newspaper equivalent of. Nobody really takes her or her silly views seriously, apart from 600,000 like-minded silly sausages who follow her on twitter, and even then most of those probably just follow her for the lulz.
Look how it ended for him?
Quite well really, he ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God, if you believe that shite.
The space on Gods left is reserved for Katie.
-
Simple statistics question
do you consider the commenters in the national papers as a reasonably accurate cross section of the public
Well as you believe they aren't, provide a cite.
As to the votes on there, no doubt about it.
Remember, I have observed certain supporters posting on those papers with their well rehearsed comments.
-
Oh look - a partial quote. Here is my post in full, which does at least reference the thread topic, unlike yours!
"TBH I don't suppose the average DM reader is remotely interested in the convoluted details of a damages trial between the McCanns and some foreign ex-cop. Of far more interest is the spectacle of Hatey Katie sticking the knife into a new victim and drawing fresh blood. You'll just have to rely on the good old PT press for all that factual reportage on the damages trial... @)(++(*"
Careful Alfie, you could be creating a new nickname there. Hatey Katie and her victims......Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Mrs Fenn, Ricardo Paiva, Goncalo Amaral; F*****g T****rs all.
-
Yeah, and look how it ended for Him.
Katie Hopkins is basically a "Shock Jock", or the newspaper equivalent of. Nobody really takes her or her silly views seriously, apart from 600,000 like-minded silly sausages who follow her on twitter, and even then most of those probably just follow her for the lulz.
So, if she is of no consequence why bother commenting on her ? 8)-)))
-
So, Katie has informed us of the following, regarding the Daily Mail:
“The Mail will back you and they will provide the legal support that will allow you that freedom. Everyone else is terrified of compliance, terrified of legal costs and terrified of their own shadow".
Does that therefore mean that it is the MSM with the most freedom to print the "real" news, as far as the sceptics on here are concerned? Can we take it that any article published in the DM regarding this case has been written without the constraints that apparently face journos on other newspapers? Does it mean that the next time the DM publishes some news item favourable to the McCann camp that we can take it as gospel?
Please let us know where we stand with regard to taking quotes from the (now) highly esteemed Daily Mail to support our discussions, oh arbiters of what is true and what is not true in the papers!
-
Careful Alfie, you could be creating a new nickname there. Hatey Katie and her victims......Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Mrs Fenn, Ricardo Paiva, Goncalo Amaral; F*****g T****rs all.
Silly post, and most childish. I thought you were far too mature for such cheap nonsense. @)(++(*
-
This constant badgering is all becoming rather tiresome.
-
Silly post, and most childish. I thought you were far too mature for such cheap nonsense. @)(++(*
'....Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Mrs Fenn, Ricardo Paiva, Goncalo Amaral; F*****g T****rs all...'
So if you thought that post was childish, was does that make Kate Mccann, who said those things ? 8)-)))
I can give a few suggestions.
-
So, Katie has informed us of the following, regarding the Daily Mail:
“The Mail will back you and they will provide the legal support that will allow you that freedom. Everyone else is terrified of compliance, terrified of legal costs and terrified of their own shadow".
Does that therefore mean that it is the MSM with the most freedom to print the "real" news, as far as the sceptics on here are concerned? Can we take it that any article published in the DM regarding this case has been written without the constraints that apparently face journos on other newspapers? Does it mean that the next time the DM publishes some news item favourable to the McCann camp that we can take it as gospel?
Please let us know where we stand with regard to taking quotes from the (now) highly esteemed Daily Mail to support our discussions, oh arbiters of what is true and what is not true in the papers!
Well The Sun figured strongly in some fairly recent supporters posts so I guess the Daily Mail is an improvement on that.
As for it being gospel; it might be it might not be like any other newspaper.
I guess the easiest thing is to disbelieve all of it. Paraphrasing Stokeley Carmichael: " the punks are lying period".
Work up from there to suit your individual prejudices.
-
I wish I could take credit for "Hatey Katie" but sadly I cannot as it seems to have been first coined in the Daily Mail itself, ironically.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3187190/Deborah-Ross-Katie-Hopkins-ignore-away.html
-
This constant badgering is all becoming rather tiresome.
I agree, so stop doing it and go for a lie down.
-
I agree, so stop doing it and go for a lie down.
Is that what your mum does and you sneak in and use the computer? @)(++(*
-
Is that what your mum does and you sneak in and use the computer? @)(++(*
Yawn. If you must insult, try and think up something original, that line's been done to death.
-
Can we reduce the bickering please?
-
Once again it seems that a serious point can't be discussed because of deflection.
I happen to think that our media should raise it's standards, stop copying and pasting each other's [often inaccurate] stories and start to invest in proper research and balanced reporting.
A lot of people have never experienced serious responsible news reporting and the media may find that they would get more interest by raising their standards.
Please note I'm not recommending Katie Hopkins type pieces, but if a family can intimidate the media to the extent that Ms Hopkins alleges then freedom of the press doesn't exist in the UK.
Factual informative journalism seems to be the obvious way to go to avoid such problems in the future because it was lazy, badly researched sensationalist stories which opened the door to the alleged gagging.
-
Once again it seems that a serious point can't be discussed because of deflection.
I happen to think that our media should raise it's standards, stop copying and pasting each other's [often inaccurate] stories and start to invest in proper research and balanced reporting.
A lot of people have never experienced serious responsible news reporting and the media may find that they would get more interest by raising their standards.
Please note I'm not recommending Katie Hopkins type pieces, but if a family can intimidate the media to the extent that Ms Hopkins alleges then freedom of the press doesn't exist in the UK.
Factual informative journalism seems to be the obvious way to go to avoid such problems in the future because it was lazy, badly researched sensationalist stories which opened the door to the alleged gagging.
So what is Hopkins unable to say that she would like to
I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue
-
So what is Hopkins unable to say that she would like to
I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue
Any action by a plaintiff is retrospective after the "no smoke without fire" damage has been done.
Newspapers are in it for money so if increase in revenue = 2x: less payout on "steps of law courts = x= x profit then good deal. I doubt they'll do owt different unless contempt of court is involved.
The only risk is knowing where to pitch the offer.
-
Any action by a plaintiff is retrospective after the "no smoke without fire" damage has been done.
Newspapers are in it for money so if increase in revenue = 2x: less payout on "steps of law courts = x= x profit then good deal. I doubt they'll do owt different unless contempt of court is involved.
The only risk is knowing where to pitch the offer.
So the papers can print what they like as long as it's true but they can't simply print accusations that cannot be substantiated that sounds about fair to me
-
So the papers can print what they like as long as it's true but they can't simply print accusations that cannot be substantiated that sounds about fair to me
No, they print what they think is true.
-
So what is Hopkins unable to say that she would like to
I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue
I think Ms Hopkins has managed to say what she wanted to. What we don't know is whether other journalists can do the same.
Do you seriously believe that censorship is preferable to freedom of speech? Or is that only when you think the censorship is justified?
I think you may have quite the wrong idea of Portugal. It is criticised for it's denial of freedom of speech, not it's upholding of it;
IPI report highlights need for defamation reform in Portugal
Criminal provisions, civil compensation highlighted as threats to press freedom
...a number of journalists and legal experts participating in the Lisbon seminar expressed particular concern over the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.
The report also highlights concerns among Portuguese legal experts and journalists as to whether the country’s courts give proper weight to freedom of expression when considering defamation cases. In part, these concerns were motivated by what appeared to be an unusually high number of ECHR cases in which Portugal was condemned for violating Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
IPI research, highlighted in the report, shows that between January 2005 and January 2015, Portugal was condemned 18 times in Art. 10 cases.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html
-
Once again it seems that a serious point can't be discussed because of deflection.
I happen to think that our media should raise it's standards, stop copying and pasting each other's [often inaccurate] stories and start to invest in proper research and balanced reporting.
A lot of people have never experienced serious responsible news reporting and the media may find that they would get more interest by raising their standards.
Please note I'm not recommending Katie Hopkins type pieces, but if a family can intimidate the media to the extent that Ms Hopkins alleges then freedom of the press doesn't exist in the UK.
Factual informative journalism seems to be the obvious way to go to avoid such problems in the future because it was lazy, badly researched sensationalist stories which opened the door to the alleged gagging.
I asked you for examples of aspects of the case which you would like to see reported in the media but which you obviously feel the media are unable to do so because the are so scared of the McCanns. You cited the recent court judgment which could easily have been reported indepth and completely factually and therefore been quite unlikely to have faced any sort of legal action. Indeed according to Katie Hopkins even the threat of legal action would not prevent the Mail printing articles critical of the McCanns. So, apart from the recent court judgement indepth reportage which would undoubtedly be of little interest to all but the most fanatical McCann obsessives, what aspects of the case do you think the Mail should be investigating in depth and reporting to its readers that it's not, and what do you think is stopping it from doing so?
-
I asked you for examples of aspects of the case which you would like to see reported in the media but which you obviously feel the media are unable to do so because the are so scared of the McCanns. You cited the recent court judgment which could easily have been reported indepth and completely factually and therefore been quite unlikely to have faced any sort of legal action. Indeed according to Katie Hopkins even the threat of legal action would not prevent the Mail printing articles critical of the McCanns. So, apart from the recent court judgement indepth reportage which would undoubtedly be of little interest to all but the most fanatical McCann obsessives, what aspects of the case do you think the Mail should be investigating in depth and reporting to its readers that it's not, and what do you think is stopping it from doing so?
I gave one example. I could give more but that's not the point. The point [which you seem to have missed] is that rather than allegedly running scared they could, by writing well thought out factual stories, avoid being restricted by the whims of whoever has Carter Ruck and a skilled media manipulator in their corner. I don't suppose they care, to their shame. That's one of the reasons why I haven't bought a UK newspaper for 20 years.
-
I gave one example. I could give more but that's not the point. The point [which you seem to have missed] is that rather than allegedly running scared they could, by writing well thought out factual stories, avoid being restricted by the whims of whoever has Carter Ruck and a skilled media manipulator in their corner. I don't suppose they care, to their shame. That's one of the reasons why I haven't bought a UK newspaper for 20 years.
If they were writing well-thought out factual articles then they would have nothing to fear from Carter Ruck and the McCanns, unless of course by "well thought out" you mean articles which imply that the McCanns hid their child's body and started a bogus fund. Newspapers have uncovered many miscarriages of justice and fradulent behaviours in the last 20 years, one paper managed to bring the whole of the House of Commons into disrepute, so I think you rather underestimate them, or at least tar them all with the same brush.
-
So the papers can print what they like as long as it's true but they can't simply print accusations that cannot be substantiated that sounds about fair to me
I didn't sat that.
-
I think Ms Hopkins has managed to say what she wanted to. What we don't know is whether other journalists can do the same.
Do you seriously believe that censorship is preferable to freedom of speech? Or is that only when you think the censorship is justified?
I think you may have quite the wrong idea of Portugal. It is criticised for it's denial of freedom of speech, not it's upholding of it;
IPI report highlights need for defamation reform in Portugal
Criminal provisions, civil compensation highlighted as threats to press freedom
...a number of journalists and legal experts participating in the Lisbon seminar expressed particular concern over the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.
The report also highlights concerns among Portuguese legal experts and journalists as to whether the country’s courts give proper weight to freedom of expression when considering defamation cases. In part, these concerns were motivated by what appeared to be an unusually high number of ECHR cases in which Portugal was condemned for violating Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
IPI research, highlighted in the report, shows that between January 2005 and January 2015, Portugal was condemned 18 times in Art. 10 cases.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html
Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism
-
Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism
I rather think that was the point of the post.
-
Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism
You said;
'I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue'
The article I posted says that's not true. People can't say what they like. You can't have it both ways, even though I'm sure you'll try.
This bit is interesting;
the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.
The article is mostly about criminal defamation, which is seen as an outdated concept, but civil defamation is also criticised for stifling freedom of expression.
-
You said;
'I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue'
The article I posted says that's not true. People can't say what they like. You can't have it both ways, even though I'm sure you'll try.
This bit is interesting;
the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.
The article is mostly about criminal defamation, which is seen as an outdated concept, but civil defamation is also criticised for stifling freedom of expression.
We would need to look at the cases that have been referred to the ECHR...is it powerful figures that are protected in portugal...from the look of the mccann judgement and the difficulty murat had in his defamation case the piece you quoted makes no sense
-
We would need to look at the cases that have been referred to the ECHR...is it powerful figures that are protected in portugal...from the look of the mccann judgement and the difficulty murat had in his defamation case the piece you quoted makes no sense
Powerful figures ?
So would that be the Illuminati then. *&*%£
-
Powerful figures ?
So would that be the Illuminati then. *&*%£
They dont exist
-
They dont exist
So YOU actually KNOW that, do you?
How?
-
So YOU actually KNOW that, do you?
How?
Maybe i should have qualified my post, what YOU think the illumanti is, a conspiracy theory, to do with a load of evil people controlling the world, it is not,do more research dear, the illumaniti were part or creators of the enlightenment a w centuries ago, a positive force and the antithesis of the modern bunkum about it
-
They dont exist
Oh they do in some peoples heads along with: leering reptiles and aliens and fearies as the bottom of the garden who are controlling us. well damn the tinternet thingy is hitting back.
-
The Inebriati & Knights Tiplar.
They were there in the background, at every major historical event, gently swaying from side to side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIv96reVlAE
-
Reminder.
The topic is Katie Hopkin's allegation re. the Sun. Please stay on topic, thankyou.
-
If they were writing well-thought out factual articles then they would have nothing to fear from Carter Ruck and the McCanns, unless of course by "well thought out" you mean articles which imply that the McCanns hid their child's body and started a bogus fund. Newspapers have uncovered many miscarriages of justice and fraudulent behaviours in the last 20 years, one paper managed to bring the whole of the House of Commons into disrepute, so I think you rather underestimate them, or at least tar them all with the same brush.
We are talking different things here.
Serious journalist who have access to the police ( as we have seen from Levison enquiry) to put out stories sometimes to assist the police to draw suspects out- if you will. They may have privy to information which they cannot reveal for whatever reasons Usually to allow a fair trial if one was to take place.
The papers did question the behaviour of the McCanns -they got sued settled out of court and since then started to agree with everything they said... going back to not printing anything in case they jeopardise a court case comes to mind.
Ms Hokins is not, and does not claim to be a serious investigative journalist, she is a populist social commentator she was prevented from 'chatting' about them for some reason. I sure she was well aware of the Carter Ruck thing, the Sun would be also. Kelvin got to say it anyway! As did Ms Osborn. and now people who didn't know any other thesis know it now!