For all other Mail-related topics
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#237636
Excellent, fuck off The Standard!

A friend of mine from school got accused by The Sunday Times of being the ringleader behind the 1999 riot in the City.


See here:

http://www.monbiot.com/1999/08/19/disru ... ivic-duty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In June, the paper claimed that a gentle and inoffensive young man called Chris Grimshaw was “one of the masterminds of the demonstration in the City of London”, who had, it hinted, engineered the violence there. In truth, as the reporter knew full well, Chris Grimshaw’s involvement was entirely peripheral. But he had a priveleged upbringing, confirming, to the paper’s more gullible readers, the time-honoured right-wing conceit that “popular protests” are actually the violent conspiracies of disenchanted toffs.
Don't know if he sued.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#245400
Fined 15k over an illegal photo of a kid!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/ju ... CMP=twt_fd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday has been ordered to pay £15,000 in privacy damages after one of its papers published unpixellated pictures of a child whose alleged father is a "philandering" politician.

The child, named only as AAA at the high court in London on Wednesday, was pictured in a series of articles in 2010 that speculated about the identity of her father.

In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said the photographs – published in an unnamed Associated Newspapers title – breached the child's right to privacy and ordered the publisher to pay £15,000 in damages.

"In publishing the photographs, the rights of the claimant have been breached, any award should reflect this fact and serve as notice, both as to the present and the future, as to how seriously the court regards infringement of a child's rights. This is particularly so in a case when there is such interest in the public persona of the alleged father," Davies said in the judgment.
Well, you could knock me down with a feather...
By Squeaker
Membership Days Posts
#279458
Lord Blair's friend claims paper was wrong to allege he had won contracts through cronyism

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2FmClBG6z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


I wonder why this headline doesn't mention that a High Court judge agreed with "Lord Blair's friend" and awarded him £65,000 in damages?
Mr Miller, 58, brought High Court proceedings over a front-page article in the Daily Mail in October 2008.
Oh, that's why... :roll:
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#279492
And at the end:
Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.
What legal reasons could those be, I wonder? Can't be contempt of court, the case is done and dusted, and anyway it doesn't apply in relation to reports of civil cases.

I so want a Mail sub-editor to have a burst of honesty and change that to
Sorry we are unable to accept comments for medical reasons. The editor has been told he mustn't get too excited or he will burst several blood vessels.
By Paul
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#286290
Mail on Sunday's false fraud claims about banker cost it £750,000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ja ... day-banker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


:lol:
By Fozzy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#286383
You have to wonder what on earth possesses them to defend that sort of claim for so long, given that all that they seem to have based the original story on was a totally inadequate understanding of what had gone on during the trial in question. As I understand it, newspapers making a horrendous mistake like that have the opportunity to get out of it fairly cheaply by an "Offer of amends" process in the early stages where they basically agree to withdraw the story and grovel.

I strongly suspect that they carried on because Dacre couldn't bear to say sorry to a forrin, and one with an Asian name at that. With luck the proprietors will begin to notice that pandering to Dacre's ego carries a price tag that maybe isn't worth paying any more.
By PaulOnBooks
Membership Days Posts
#286464
Fozzy wrote:You have to wonder what on earth possesses them to defend that sort of claim for so long, given that all that they seem to have based the original story on was a totally inadequate understanding of what had gone on during the trial in question. As I understand it, newspapers making a horrendous mistake like that have the opportunity to get out of it fairly cheaply by an "Offer of amends" process in the early stages where they basically agree to withdraw the story and grovel.

I strongly suspect that they carried on because Dacre couldn't bear to say sorry to a forrin, and one with an Asian name at that. With luck the proprietors will begin to notice that pandering to Dacre's ego carries a price tag that maybe isn't worth paying any more.
Probably a touch of "they don't like it up 'em" as darkies are notorious for running away from a fight. Unless they're a gang.

This is probably the first time I've applauded a banker getting money!
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#296093
I'm well aware it'll hardly break them, but I'm pleased they didn't get away scot-free with using a tragedy, in combination with the usual "look at this disgusting thing and be disgusted by it" hypocrisy, to sell their miserable rag in Ireland.

So yes, sincerely, go fuck yourself. I can't imagine anyone else fancies the job.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Labour, Generally.

I suspect this has come about becasue the trigger […]

Mark Francois MP

I would love to know how both the BBC and ITV ju[…]

GE 2020

You've a knack for getting right to the heart of t[…]

The Mail & Climate Change

Mailites fling abuse at a 16 year old girl again[…]