The Court of Appeal gave judgment today in a case which the Mirror is suing a young single mother called Stephanie Ward from which whom it stole a story which the paper then published as an "exclusive" on its front page. The judgment re-instated the Mirror's defence that a judge had struck out, and opens the way for a trial at which the MGN will seek an order that Stephanie Ward will pay the legal costs that it has incurred defending the claim, and any damages that it is ordered to pay.
I believe in a Britain in Europe that is proud of its past and wants to be proud of its future. I believe in a Europe that unites for the long-term benefit of all, not fractures for the short-term gain of the few. I believe in a Britain in Europe that is ready to be a leader, not afraid to be a loser.
As Ipso deferentially concedes in the adjudication: "IPSO acknowledged the importance of headlines in tabloid newspapers". You might think that if it did so, it would also acknowledge the importance of headlines being corrected with some degree of equivalence when it comes to prominence and reach.
The Sun's coverage amplified the grief of the families and fans. The hurt caused was deep and genuine. The effects of the paper's tawdry coverage has lasted for nearly three decades. But Kelvin MacKenzie, the editor at the time, now says he was "completely duped" after being fed the story by a press agency. Pull the other one. This is the classic defence of ignorance, in this case, from the ignorant... why do they persist with MacKenzie? He is a disgrace to journalism and an abiding symbol of how the paper isn't really sorry for the hurt and harm it did to the Hillsborough families and Liverpool more generally.
Yesterday, after twenty seven years, the families of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster were told that their fathers, sons, brothers and sisters were unlawfully killed on that unforgettable day in 1989
There are many more examples that demonstrate that we live in a world where the actions of our Government can be used to justify the erosion of rights and the crushing of criticism and dissent. The UK mustn't indulge in further episodes of bad-example setting. Here it should take on board Mr Kiai's findings and aim to find solutions that navigate between the security of the state and its citizens, whilst enshrining and protect their freedoms of association and assembly.
Our stance on gender is that your gender is irrelevant. Your sex should not define your choices, how you are perceived by others and who you are as a person - in other words your biology and subsequent gender assumptions, should not pigeon hole you.
On Thursday March 31st I appeared on ITV's This Morning, alongside regular presenters Ruth Langsford and Rylan Clark, as the show featured the story o...
It is no secret that Jeremy Clarkson's departure from the team has left the programme needing to find its cutting edge. The BBC would never admit it but its biggest grossing programme became so successful because of the ridiculous issues its presenters got it into. Bad news is really good publicity. Honest.
Labelled "EXCLUSIVE: BOMBSHELL CLAIM OVER EUROPE VOTE" the Sun in letters more than 6cm high exclaims: "QUEEN BACKS BREXIT". This startling revelation is then followed by the Sun sub-heading "EU going in wrong direction, she says". The Sun is however guilty of a grotesque deception not only of its own readers but of millions who have not bought the paper or visited its website.
This week, several tabloids, ran stories about a sinister-sounding woman who takes time off from fund raising for 'terrorist' families' only to pander to her rarefied hobby as a 'cheerleader for Islamic Zealots.'
Why did The Sun chose to misreport in this way? What was so important that they wanted to say 1 in 5 Muslims support IS rather than British Muslims are only marginally more likely than the rest of the population to have sympathy for those who go and fight in Syria? And I feel deeply uneasy about the likely answer...
The Sun's front page poll last Monday claiming that one in five British Muslims have sympathy for Jihadis was widely scorned and ridiculed, and rightly so, for its dubious methodology and all round misleadingness.
Me and a group of friends on Twitter decided to get together to start a campaign with the hashtag #1in5Muslims to show that the vast majority of Muslims are just really normal people who oppose the abhorrent views of Isis and the like and with many mocking the survey with jokes and made-up facts.
Today's front page headline in the Sun covers almost the entire page. Accompanied by a chilling photo of a knife-wielding "Jihadi John" in black balaclava, it proclaims "1 IN 5 BRIT MUSLIMS' SYMPATHY FOR JIHADIS". It is a lie. Even worse, it is a shameful distortion of its own polling data, consciously designed to fuel terror and distrust of Muslims.
The week has just begun but we have already new polling-related controversy to get stuck into. The Sun's front page today cites a poll by Survation of British Muslims and their attitudes towards terrorism and Syria... The question is asked with reference to "fighters". Many (if not most) people will be aware that there are a number of groups fighting in Syria of which the "Jihadis" are just one. Because the question doesn't mention any group(s) directly, those fighting against IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh could also fall within the respondent's interpretation of the question.