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

[Alice Purjorick]

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......... &%+((£.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

[Alfie]

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...

[Alfie]

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...

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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.

[G-Unit]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[faithlilly]

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?

[Alfie]

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?

[Alfie]

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.

[jassi]

Apparently 'Hotlips' was a nickname given to Kate at university - I must leave it to your imagination to decide what they were referring to. 

[stephen25000]

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.