The Times Defends Hate

[nobmouse.livejournal.com]

The following is in reply to a letter I sent to the times after the infamous 'critic' Carol Sarler decided it was acceptable to attack a doctor because they were transsexual. If you'd like to see the original piece that sparked this off, click here.

( Click here to read the letter )

I'm now preparing a reply in which I intend to cite the legislation that states quite clearly that any 'opinion' that is in a paid-for article is considered by law to be expressive of the views of the paying body, i.e. the Times paying for Sarler's article means her views are regarded as the views of the Times.

Furthermore, they ask why Sarler shouldn't have prejudicial views, therefore I shall ask again if they would be trying to defend her if she's attacked a doctor for being coloured, disabled or holding a particular religious viewpoint.

I doubt it will do any good but the complaints procedure must be exhaused before the Press Complaints Commission would step in when I contact them. Also, I'm still holding out a little hope that the Times is as respectable as I once thought it to be, so hopefully they'll see sense yet.