Melania Trump accepts damages and apology from Daily Mail.

[martynz]

US first lady to be paid damages under $3m having sued UK paper’s owner over claims she ‘provided services beyond simply modelling’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rom-daily-mail
I'm shocked that the Daily Mail would publish a story that wasn't true.

[buttsie]

She wanted 150mil and got 3mil + costs

Doesnt say a lot except maybe the Judge saying you win , now suck on this

[localboy]

I truly hate the Daily Mail... but what a ridiculous money grab $150m was.

[philll_77]

Settled out of court for £2.4 mill including costs, basically pin money for her. She wouldn't have won in the US, but a UK court would have found in her favour. That would mean a month or two in London and a total grilling from the defendants QC. Took the deal and ran!

[Old Jud]

Originally Posted by philll_77

Settled out of court for £2.4 mill including costs, basically pin money for her. She wouldn't have won in the US, but a UK court would have found in her favour.That would mean a month or two in London and a total grilling from the defendants QC. Took the deal and ran!

Why would she need to run? Maybe this the best possible deal and her legal team advised her to take it?

Take note of the Mail's comment on it's website.....

'The Daily Mail newspaper and the Mail Online/DailyMail.com website published an article on 20th August 2016 about Melania Trump which questioned the nature of her work as a professional model, and republished allegations that she provided services beyond simply modelling. The article included statements that Mrs Trump denied the allegations and Paolo Zampolli, who ran the modelling agency, also denied the allegations, and the article also stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The article also claimed that Mr and Mrs Trump may have met three years before they actually met, and ‘staged’ their actual meeting as a ‘ruse’.

We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them. We apologise to Mrs Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs Trump’s two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.'

Now I don't have an axe to grind as far as the Mail is concerned, it helps to balance the scales against the left-wing Guardian.
It's just a shame that a fair percentage of the Mail's readership seem incapable of taking some of it's articles with a pinch of salt, a shortcoming that some of the Guardian's readers share when they slate the Mail.

What does irritate me is the attitude of the British press in general, i'm pleased she took them to court and pleased she won.

[mizlaplan]

Regarding the Guardian:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ed-wealth.html
A must-read article for anyone in the UK who gives a toss about politics in the media in general.

[martynz]

http://anotherangryvoice.********.co...newspaper.html
"In case you are unaware of the basics, it's important to understand that the Daily Mail is an extreme-right propaganda outlet that is owned and operated by a tax-dodging billionaire called Jonathan Harmsworth (or the 4th Viscount Rothermere if you're one of these subservient forelock tuggers who actually use people's aristocratic titles instead of their actual names).

Harmsworth has set himself up as a non-dom in order to avoid paying UK taxes, and he also controls his Daily Mail investment through a Bermuda based shell company called Rothermere Continuation Ltd. Both of these things mean that you really have to take the Daily Mail's extreme British nationalist jingoism with a shovel full of salt.

If Harmsworth really loved Britain then he'd stop pretending to be resident in France in order to avoid paying UK taxes wouldn't he? And he definitely wouldn't use a Bermuda based shell company to pretend that his Daily Mail "

[haroldeye]

The Mail is a right wing newspaper but it is only extreme when viewed in the context of how far (extreme) left 'another angry voice' is.

[Mal Hombre]

The Daily Telegraph ?

[scoundrel]

One has to bear in mind what was implied in the Mail's article about Melania Trump as well as what was directly stated. It was a hurtful, damaging and humiliating statement to make about her and the only possible viable defence in a court action would have to be "justification": i.e "its actually the true facts M'Lord."

Incidentally the story was being used in the USA as part of the attempt to prevent Donald Trump from being nominated and then from being elected. The Daily Mail will have been aware of this and aware that it was participating in a political propaganda exercise. But Mrs Trump was as close to a non-combatant as anyone married to a candidate can ever be: it is palpably obvious that she has all the political ambition of an earthworm and that her priority is to be as inactive and inconspicuous as the system possibly allows and to keep as low a media profile as she possibly can. The Daily Mail mounted an unprovoked and really vicious personal attack on her reputation and deserves worse than it got IMHO.