tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post7066396749338438507..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: Mail: two libel payouts in two daysMacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-67502482003925300532010-07-30T16:23:34.051+01:002010-07-30T16:23:34.051+01:00Meanwhile Dacre is claiming that critics of the PC...Meanwhile Dacre is claiming that critics of the PCC - the illustrious body of which he is such a part - are "ignorant and prejudiced"...it defies belief.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/30/pauldacre-pcc#start-of-commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-57887306306563341742010-07-30T14:17:12.247+01:002010-07-30T14:17:12.247+01:00Unfortunately this is hardly a 'humiliation...Unfortunately this is hardly a 'humiliation' for the Daily Mail. It is entirely consistent with its business strategy of publishing lies and half truths that appeal to bigots, simpletons and the intellectually lazy. The Mail understands and accepts that it will occasionally have to apologise and pay compensation to its victims. That (to its publishers) is far preferable to losing its position as Britain's leading purveyor of hate. If the Mail started pubishing a truthful and balanced view on immigration, single-mothers, global warming, etc, its readers would soon jump ship.<br /><br />For me the interesting thing about this story is that Subramanyam has reportedly only received £80k plus costs. I expect that is a proper application of English libel law, but given the devastation caused to this man's life and the immeasurable harm to the Tamil cause (how proud the Mail must be that it may indirectly have caused the continued slaughter of innocent Tamils) perhaps this case presents an argument for further libel reform.<br /><br />The Mail (and the Sun) either lied or recklessly failed to verify their story because all they cared about was attracting readers. They apparently paid no regard to the harm that would be caused. The penalty should have been in the millions - sensible damages going to Subramanyam and a much larger amount going to charitable causes. The Mail should also have been forced to print a full front page apology.<br /><br />While technically a civil case, this was an example of soft justice. The punishment not fitting the crime. And we all know how the Mail feels about that.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015927918429281819noreply@blogger.com