Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Mail Online tactics - information and photos pinched from Facebook and blogs, requests for privacy ignored, doorstepping, sending notes to the distraught parents via the police, long distance photographs of grief-stricken children - the young sister of the victim, then lying through their teeth (or through their counsel).
When the family lawyer contacted the PCC they asked him to draft a letter to editors asking them to stay away - in effect to follow the Editors' Code...
The Mail claim they couldn't do as asked because Dacre wasn't around (says a lot about his power, too) because he was washing his hair or something, or suffering from catarrh.
The Mail subsequently took down some of the photographs, but not that of the boy's distraught sister - they said they didn't know it was her - despite having cropped the father out of the picture. It was also a long-lens picture taken without consent, intruding into private grief, photograph of a child published without permission etc etc.
This is truly awful; the fourth estate at it's most wretchedly venal, and of course, they pimp the pieces with Facebook snippets quick enough, while slamming the site and getting the "never again"
long lens out on the founder's honeymoon