(not satire – it’s the UK press!)
Surprise surprise.
The Daily Mail have written to me rejecting my complaint that they bullied and smeared two young children – and revealed their identities – in one of their articles.
You can see my original letter of complaint here:
Complaint to Paul Dacre chair of press code about Paul Dacre Daily Mail editor
In fact, the Daily Mail’s so-called Readers’ Editor was so outraged that I had actually dared to complain about one of their articles that he or she threatened me that I was being “defamatory”:
“Your claims that the parents referred to in the article had been ‘targeted’, ‘tricked’ and told ‘lies’ by journalists at The Mail Online are untrue, unsubstantiated and defamatory.”
DEFAMATORY: damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous.
In other words – dare to complain to us about one of our articles and we might sue you.
So you’d better shut the f*ck up.
Sorry. Not much chance of that I’m afraid.
.
Here’s the full letter from the Readers Editor:
Dear Mr Pride
Your letter to Paul Dacre about an article on Mail Online headlined: The perfect family Christmas…. on BENEFITS: couple out of work for five years spend £1,500 on gifts and food – including TVs for their two children’s bedroom walls’ has been passed to us in the Corrections department.
While we are sorry to learn that you were offended by the article, we see no merit in the points you raise.
For your information, the article was syndicated to Mail Online by a reputable news agency after a version of it had appeared in The Sun newspaper on Saturday 29 November.
Mail Online uploaded their version during the early hours of Sunday 30 November. It was removed on Monday morning following a request from the news agency (because of a problem over the syndication). It did not appear in the Daily Mail newspaper.
Your claims that the parents referred to in the article had been ‘targeted’, ‘tricked’ and told ‘lies’ by journalists at The Mail Online are untrue, unsubstantiated and defamatory.
We have no reason to believe that article contained inaccuracies and we believe that the couple featured had co-operated with the news agency reporter who interviewed them and had been happy to pose for photographs. Contrary to your claims, the children’s faces were properly pixelated by Mail Online.
No one’s privacy was compromised since there was consent to publication.
There was similarly no breach of Clause 6 of the Editors’ Code because the parents clearly gave their consent to the photographs of the children.
In any event, as I have explained, the article appeared only briefly on the Mail Online website and there are no plans to republish.
Your assertion that the Daily Mail and Mail Online has ‘bullied struggling British families’ and ‘will continue to do so’ is rejected.
Yours sincerely
The Readers Editor
At least I know now why some people on their payroll have been so keen to find out my real identity recently.
.
Please feel free to share. And comment.
.
The Coalition Government Colouring and Activity Book is now available for download as a PDF and in print:
Pride's Purge 
Hmmm….I wonder how DMGT would take to someone exposing the story of one of their senior executives fired ( within living memory…) for inappropriate behaviour/sexual harassment….begs a thought or two eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tell them your name is Paul Dacre, that’ll confuse them!
LikeLike
Well done Tom … they don’t like it up ’em do they!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Complaint to Paul Dacre chair of press code about Paul Dacre Daily Mail editor | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Dark threats from Daily Mail after I dare to complain about one of their articles | Alternative News Network
I dont want to know your real identity , i prefer the fake one
What is it with the Faily Hate ?
Why on earth a family of ” greedy scroungers ” would ” happily co operate” and smile for the camera is way beyond me ..
Why doea.the Daily Hate think think this shit is newsworthy anyway ?
why not do a story on a smug tax avoider or lord fleecing the country for a few million quid instead ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Still Oaks and commented:
Sounds to me like you have rattled them Tom Pride.
Nice, very, very, nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
Such bad grammar from a “Readers Editor” – whatever the fuck that is. Cooperate is one word you clown. Also, stating that the article was previously published by The Sun as if to make out that all is therefore legit is just beyond belief. I hate these people. Keep up the good work Mr Pride. Guinnessgary
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.
LikeLike
Tom, being accused of defamation by the “Daily Mail” is almost a badge of honour!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not up to your normal standard. The poor grammar is yours – how can you be “threatened with being defamatory”? There isn’t an atom of a threat in their letter.
LikeLike
“We have no reason to believe that article contained inaccuracies and we believe that the couple featured had co-operated with the news agency reporter who interviewed them and had been happy to pose for photographs.”
Except the article was a fabrication (seemingly admitted by the Sun*) and the family in question were told the story was a light-hearted one about “Providing a Good Christmas on a Low Income.” So instead of being pulled for being a sack of lying propaganda, it was because of legal reasons.
I feel dirty for researching this case but wanted to see the other side since newspaper stories tend to be made up rubbish designed to ruin their targets (unless it’s a paid puff piece/ideological hero). I had a personal case once where the press (all of them) lied and demonized a friend of mine by making out they were a drug dealer.
*Apologies if actually eventually received, mean fuck all, they got what they wanted which was their 2 minutes of hate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Getting a response from the Chief Whip – proves you’ve rattled the correct cages! Keep it up Tom xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I dislike newspaper articles and tv programmes designed to stir up hatred of the unemployed. The way the economy is being run there is going to be plenty more of them. More automation in supermarkets etc, more robots, more zero hour contracts if you`re lucky. Instead of envying the unemployed their leisure – that`s when they`re not fulfilling their requirement to job search for jobs that don`t exist – people should focus their attention on the few percent at the top of the social hierarchy who are the ones creating the problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
This is the sequel to the letter Mr Pride wrote a few days ago to the Daily Mail complaining that they had not taken sufficient steps to protect the identities of the two children featured in a grotty story about ‘benefit scroungers’ spending £1,500 on Christmas. Despite the Mail’s justification for the article – that it was passed on to them by the Sun – one of the commenters on this piece, Futureindoubt, provides a bit of further background to the story, which makes it even more shabby and deceptive. According to this commenter, the story is a fabrication, and the couple featured in it were tricked into believing that it would be ‘a light-hearted one’ on ‘providing a good Christmas on a low income’. This explains why the Daily Mail is touchy about an article which was, from its origins, mendacious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“we believe that the couple featured had co-operated with the news agency reporter who interviewed them”
In other words, we havent a clue whether they knew or even agreed to anything we were planning to do.
Its hard enough for struggling families without bile and judgement from the Daily Hate and I fail to see how this “article” is in the public interest, especially when its clear motivation is to shame those who are trying just to live their lives as best as they can. Keep rattling cages my dear fellow 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on i wish i was tulip o'hare.
LikeLike
I hate to say this, but I can see their point. Not that it justifies their reaction, but they are basically saying that Mail journalists didn’t write the article, so the fact that it was bullshit isn’t their fault. The fact that they printed it should bother them, but no one expects them to feel remorse for that kind of thing.
#JustSayin’
LikeLike
Dark threats? I can’t see any in the reply from the Daily Mail. It looks like a reasonable response to a rather dubious complaint.
If Sun journalists misled this family in order to get a story then surely that’s a matter for the family to complain to the Sun about, and to make it public only if they wish to. I don’t see what it’s got to do with either the Daily Mail or Tom Pride.
It’s not as if there’s a shortage of appalling journalism which IS the Daily Mail’s fault!
LikeLike
It is impossible to defame the Daily Heil. Everyone hates them already, so it is not possible to reduce their reputation any further.
LikeLike
very personal – the Readers Editor – no name, no blame – the Mail is shit made manifest.
Still get same reaction no matter which newspaper you write to – the Guardian are exemplorary in their defence of all that they do and let you know in no uncertain terms that you are a fucking idiot and they are class!!
British media – part of the establishment with no desire to leave
LikeLike
Reblogged this on markcatlin3695's Blog.
LikeLike
jeremy said: December 10, 2014 at 7:58 pm
“very personal – the Readers Editor – no name, no blame”
Quid pro quo. Tom Pride apparently didn’t use his real name either.
LikeLike