Monday, 12 April 2010

Carole Malone isn't NICE either

Here's a typical example of how loudmouth columnists rely on other newspaper articles - rather than their own research - in churning out their rants and in doing so end up repeating mistakes from the originals.

The Mail's 'factually inaccurate' article of 8 April on cancer drugs was rebutted by the Chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) the following day.

Yet Carole Malone - the one who thinks illegal immigrants get free cars - repeated all the claims against NICE in her News of the World column which appeared two days after NICE's clarification.

She wrote:

Yes, that very nasty organisation called NICE - which in recent years has become judge, jury and state executioner - has refused via West Kent Primary Care Trust to pay the £100 a day for cancer dugs that would allow Nikki to see her baby sons grow up.

This is incorrect. NICE has never made any decision on the drugs in question for this type of cancer because they've never been asked to. Moreover, NICE were not pulling the strings about the decision of the PCT.

The Mail article even included the line:

A [NICE] spokesman said decisions on funding it were entirely up to PCTs.

But Malone conveniently ignored that bit.

She goes on:

This is the organisation whose decisions have hastened the deaths of 20,000 people, the same organisation which in the past 18 months has said NO to 15 cancer treatments (that's not 15 people - but 15 classes of cancer drugs) and they've done all this despite a government promise in 2008 that people WOULD get access to life extending drugs.

Accusing an organisation of 'hastening the deaths of 20,000 people' is rather strong. It's based on a Rare Cancers Forum report (mentioned in the Mail article, she didn't find it herself) that said 16,000 people suffer with forms of cancer that may have been treated by four drugs rejected by NICE.

But it's only may have helped - for Malone to turn that into her definite accusation is a bit of a leap.

Then she repeats the Mail's 'factually inaccurate' claims about the number of drugs that had been rejected. And she did this despite NICE correcting the record two days before.

Hopefully, NICE will complain to the PCC to get both the Mail and Malone to retract the lie.

Back in 2007, Malone appeared on GMTV to attack Heather Mills (video on Youtube, watch from 05:06). She says about Mills:

Never once has she gone to the Press Complaints Commission, not once has she complained about any of the stories, not once has she sued over the untrue...she has sued my paper about a mistake we made.

So not once had Mills sued a newspaper, says Malone. Except the time she sued Malone's newspaper (at the time she worked for the Sunday Mirror). Got that?

Malone also says about Mills, with no hint of irony:

Time and time again we have found out things she has said are patently not true.

Hmm. Pot and Kettle? Malone has said illegal immigrants get free cars, has made claims about Cherie Blair that resulted in the News of the World paying libel damages, reviewed a performance by Cheryl Cole that hadn't happened, and has made claims about cancer drugs which aren't correct.

Time and time again we have found out things she has said are patently not true.

Most bizarrely of all, Malone told GMTV:

She [Mills] says the tabloids make things up - that is not true.

There are very strict laws governing all newspapers.

When Fiona Phillips groaned 'Oh Carole' in response, Malone reiterated the point:

No but Fiona, there are.

There aren't strict laws governing newspapers. There is a decent Code of Conduct that isn't very well upheld - as the complaint against Malone's totally made-up 'free cars for illegal immigrants' claim proves.

But does Malone really think she can say - with a straight face - that tabloids 'don't make things up'?

It's laughable. But given her position as columnist on the best-selling Sunday newspaper and her regular pitiful appearances on daytime magazine shows, it's not very funny.


  1. Carole Malone is an odious individual. What else can you say about alleged journalists like her who make their nice living using their columns to spread innuendo, half-truths and often outright lies against anyone she chooses.

    And the vast majority never get the chance to reply.

    Nice work if you can get it.

  2. After reading this yesterday, I posted a comment on the News of the Screws "story", carefully pointing out that it was, in fact, a Tissue of Lies. It will come as no surprise that, twenty-four hours later, it hasn't been published.

  3. They apparently *don't* make things up - they're not up to that ability level. Instead, they churn out things that other people have made up. Maybe we're playing with semantics here...


Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.