Headline in the Sun: Kate Mccann and Coral Jones to be given award

[Erngath]

Sorry.  I can't see how to, although I did try.

You seem to have commented before the "Quote".

But we all got what you meant.

Thank you for trying.
I'm apprehensive that I will "muck up" this time too.


No all ok. Think I now know what my mistake was.

[faithlilly]

So no evidence at all that Kate is harming the charity.  I would go so far as to say the reverse is true, as by lending her name to tne charity ( like her or loathe her) she has helped raise its profile immeasurably.  Do you really think it would have got quite so much publicity without her involvement?  Remember, all publicity is good publicity!

Unfortunately I have to agree with you Alfie. Kate has certainly gained the charity column inches in the tabloids. Whether that has actually benefited it's profile  is a rather more complicated question.

[Alfred R Jones]

'A vociferous few'. When an already very unpopular woman gets almost 18,000 members of the general public agreeing with her it certainly gives a flavour of the country's views on the subject and can hardly be considered 'a vociferous few', expect of course by those who really and truly can't see the wood for the trees.

The Daily Mail website receives over 5 million visitors A DAY.  Minus 18,000 "green arrows" over a week, that's A LOT of people who really couldn't be arsed either way about this story.  A "vociferous few" is about bang on I'd say.

[xtina]

So no evidence at all that Kate is harming the charity.  I would go so far as to say the reverse is true, as by lending her name to tne charity ( like her or loathe her) she has helped raise its profile immeasurably.  Do you really think it would have got quite so much publicity without her involvement?  Remember, all publicity is good publicity!

If only she had been as good as you think....   ...

looking after her children....... and keeping them from harm in the first place

[Erngath]

'A vociferous few'. When an already very unpopular woman gets almost 18,000 members of the general public agreeing with her it certainly gives a flavour of the country's views on the subject and can hardly be considered 'a vociferous few', expect of course by those who really and truly can't see the wood for the trees.

Have you read some of the comments, surely you cannot endorse them. Many full of myths, lies and downright libel. Others interspersed with vile name calling.

What do you believe will be achieved by Katie's campaign?

[Alfred R Jones]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you Alfie. Kate has certainly gained the charity column inches in the tabloids. Whether that has actually benefited it's profile  is a rather more complicated question.

Not really.  If it's donations are on the up, and more people are signing up for its alerts etc then that must in part be due to the publicity raised, publicity that most probably wouldn't be there without Kate McCann.  If she wasn't a draw she wouldn't be used, end of.

[Alfred R Jones]

If only she had been as good as you think....   ...

looking after her children....... and keeping them from harm in the first place

The world is full of "if onlys", it's pointless to harpon about them continually, nine years after the event.  Time to get over it.

[jassi]

Have you read some of the comments, surely you cannot endorse them. Many full of myths, lies and downright libel. Others interspersed with vile name calling.

What do you believe will be achieved by Katie's campaign?

Campaign?  I thought she had written one article. She'll need to write many more for it to be a campaign.

[faithlilly]

The Daily Mail website receives over 5 million visitors A DAY.  Minus 18,000 "green arrows" over a week, that's A LOT of people who really couldn't be arsed either way about this story.  A "vociferous few" is about bang on I'd say.

So of the members of the public who could 'arsed' 18,000 have agreed with a woman you could argue was almost as unpopular as its possible to be. That's still a significant amount no matter what way you slice it.

[Alfred R Jones]

So of the members of the public who could 'arsed' 18,000 have agreed with a woman you could argue was almost as unpopular as its possible to be. That's still a significant amount no matter what way you slice it.

it's 0.004% of daily DM readership, but if you think that's significant then that's up to you I guess...

[Erngath]

Campaign?  I thought she had written one article. She'll need to write many more for it to be a campaign.

She has made a few "tweets" as well as her article and judging by the volume of followers and tweeters, I believe Faithlilly said 18,000, that does seem to be a bit of a campaign or at least it could develop into one.
Do you think it will achieve anything?
Is there an objective to all that "tweeting" and emailing comments.

[Alfred R Jones]

deleted.  Incorrect info given.

[faithlilly]

Not really.  If it's donations are on the up, and more people are signing up for its alerts etc then that must in part be due to the publicity raised, publicity that most probably wouldn't be there without Kate McCann.  If she wasn't a draw she wouldn't be used, end of.

Are their donations up ? And are more people signing up to the alerts because this time, unlike the last two attempts at launching this system, the campaign is being fronted by Stephen Fry and not Kate McCann ( even though she has, by dint of the every-obliging Sun, managed to cover herself in the reflected glory ) ?

[jassi]

She has made a few "tweets" as well as her article and judging by the volume of followers and tweeters, I believe Faithlilly said 18,000, that does seem to be a bit of a campaign or at least it could develop into one.
Do you think it will achieve anything?
Is there an objective to all that "tweeting" and emailing comments.

Of course. It will achieve publicity for Hopkins and satisfy all those who feel the need to tweet in agreement.

[Alfred R Jones]

Are their donations up ? And are more people signing up to the alerts because this time, unlike the last two attempts at launching this system, the campaign is being fronted by Stephen Fry and not Kate McCann ( even though she has, by dint of the every-obliging Sun, managed to cover herself in the reflected glory ) ?

if Stephen Fry was enough on his own to guarantee success, why drag two mothers of dead / missing children into it?  Glad to see you agree Kate's covered in glory though...