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

[Alfie]

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!

[Alfie]

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.

[faithlilly]

This constant badgering is all becoming rather tiresome.

[stephen25000]

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 ?

I can give a few suggestions.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Alfie]

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

[Alfie]

This constant badgering is all becoming rather tiresome.

I agree, so stop doing it and go for a lie down.

[faithlilly]

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? 

[Alfie]

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.

[slartibartfast]

Can we reduce the bickering please?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[John]

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.