Advanced search

JK Rowling all set to sue the Daily Mail

(19 Posts)
Handsup Fri 31-Jan-14 21:28:17

..for libel over 'single mother' article. I heart her!

Lottiedoubtie Fri 31-Jan-14 21:30:24

Me too! Good on her. They really are vile.

TheWomanTheyCallJayne Fri 31-Jan-14 21:31:31

And you know it's not for the money too, it's cos they're arses

nennypops Sat 01-Feb-14 13:21:45

Good for her. That article was so typical of the DM's attitude that the truth simply doesn't matter if it gets in the way of allowing them to bash one of their many hate objects. But how stupid of them to choose to go after Rowling, they must know that she won't hesitate to use the law to protect herself and her family and she can easily afford to do so.

tribpot Sat 01-Feb-14 13:23:38

It's a shame she has to sue them for something particular, and not just for existing.

nennypops Sat 01-Feb-14 16:50:00

Someone suggested she should just buy the paper and close it down. Sounds good to me.

LedareAnsley Sat 01-Feb-14 17:49:44

nennypops grin

God I love that woman.

WestmorlandSausage Sat 01-Feb-14 18:02:23


That article was awful and a complete set up of everyone involved and has probably ruined friendships.

It should be a matter of national shame that the daily mail exists.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Sun 02-Feb-14 20:54:32

Totally behind her on this - DM were just being pernicious twats as per usual. The fact that it was in response to a wonderful piece written by JK Rowling for Gingerbread, which was such a breathe of fresh air in how lone parenthood is perceived and portrayed, makes me doubly supportive of her actions.

I hope she wins and then some.

FrankieStien Sun 02-Feb-14 21:00:30

Good for her!

CuttedUpPear Sun 02-Feb-14 21:02:45

Go JK.
What a shame that she was singled out for their idiot vitriol.

nennypops Sun 02-Feb-14 23:29:19

It should be a matter of national shame that the daily mail exists.

^ ^ ^

This. It presents the most godawful picture of the British to the world, encourages bigots to feel validated, and thinks nothing of lying and twisting the facts to pursue its own agenda. I increasingly wonder why we tolerate this disgusting rag.

AgaPanthers Mon 03-Feb-14 12:49:25

Hmm, I missed the original story, it seems to be getting more publicity now though!

What exactly is the cause of action here? An unnamed woman (not Rowling) who the online subeditor headlined as "upset and bewildered" (in print as 'surprised and confused'), wasn't in fact 'upset and bewildered' or indeed 'surprised and confused', but had some alternative set of emotions, which lawyers on £650+VAT/hour can argue about in court.

Dear lord, if only I could afford to clog up the courts with such concerns.

Hurrah for our libel laws, which protect the fabulously wealthy fabulously, but only of course when they are applied against publications we don't like!

When people sue The Guardian for libel, of course, our libel laws have a "chilling effect on free speech".

Better report here btw:

YoniMatopoeia Mon 03-Feb-14 13:05:31

Go JK.

Not that it will stop the mail spewing their bile, but every little helps.

Lottapianos Mon 03-Feb-14 13:09:44

Good for her. I admire her so much - she's a really honourable noble person. How come she can manage to pay every single penny of tax she owes on her enormous fortune without threatening to flee the country or bleating on about how unfair it all is? She could teach a few folks some good lessons

AgaPanthers Mon 03-Feb-14 13:35:35

She doesn't pay every penny of her fortune in tax.

She is domiciled in the UK, which means she pays UK tax.

How much tax she pays is a complete mystery.

As a simple example, on PAYE, as a salaried worker, you will pay 47% tax on earnings of say £10 million.

But using a personal services company, the tax rate is 23%.

It would make more sense to follow the latter route.

Nobody sets out to maximise the amount of tax he pays, and what her overall tax % has never been published.

Perhaps she feels that it is reasonable, but under tax regimes of the past (e.g., 80% in the 60s under Labour) she would have felt otherwise.

She has stated that she is UK domiciled for tax purposes and doesn't mind paying tax. How much tax she pays, or if her accountant minimises the burden, is not known.

DrankSangriaInThePark Wed 05-Feb-14 07:13:39

Why should it be known?

You don't know how much tax I pay either, do you?

I have a feeling that whatever tax JKR had to pay, she would think it reasonable, given the money she freely admits to having. I think, aside from a few plot holes and verb+adverb monotonous sentences, JKR is beyond reproach.

That even the DM can't find anything truthfully bad about her, speaks volumes. If they can't, that must mean there isn't anything.

<team JK>

TheWomanTheyCallJayne Wed 05-Feb-14 09:01:51

Lotta didn't say she (jkr) paid all her fortune in tax.

AgaPanthers Wed 05-Feb-14 13:24:26

I'm not saying that she did. I'm just pointing out that JK Rowling's earnings structure is naturally favourable, under the UK tax system, to low tax rates, so it's not necessarily such an amazing, unique act as people are implying.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now