Katie Hopkins says Sun banned her from writing about Madeleine McCann!

[xtina]

Nope. I worked it out all by myself. 

 

[Brietta]

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

[John]

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. 

[Alfie]

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?

[Admin]

Personal attacks and comments intended to invoke a less than favourable response will cease now.

Admin

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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

[John]

Please keep to topic under discussion.  If anyone wants to discuss a new topic please great a new thread. TY

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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' ?

[Alice Purjorick]

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?