It does make you wonder how inefficient these kind of manhunts are when you read about the multiple sightings and people pointing at them days before they were caught. Reminds me of the farcical escaped alleged Iranian spy who was wondering around West London
Not sure about this, they print what they want, and humans lap it up. If they printed another story it would be lapped up too. same as it ever was. the big difference now is the youngers are not as invested in newspapers as the elders areThey print what their readers want. Human interest stories are what interest humans. Horrible species.
Not really. They’ve always had sales data driving front pages etc but now it’s all about online it’s pretty clear what people do and don’t read, and the sites shape their output accordingly. If nobody read about this case they’d soon reduce and relegate their coverage because they want the clicks and eyeballs.Not sure about this, they print what they want, and humans lap it up. If they printed another story it would be lapped up too. same as it ever was. the big difference now is the youngers are not as invested in newspapers as the elders are
The story confuses me somewhat. She's aristocratic so will have the funds and means to do as she pleases but yet it must be social services who are interested for whatever reason.
They all do seem to limit themselves to a very small pond of stories, when actually there are so many more to choose from.Not really. They’ve always had sales data driving front pages etc but now it’s all about online it’s pretty clear what people do and don’t read, and the sites shape their output accordingly. If nobody read about this case they’d soon reduce and relegate their coverage because they want the clicks and eyeballs.
They all do seem to limit themselves to a very small pond of stories, when actually there are so many more to choose from.
She didn’t cut ties with her trust fund.According to the article, she cut off ties with her family in 2016.
I dunno, ive no subscriptions and hardly ever buy a paper. So do they make the money they used to or are they just a way for big biz to try and influence opinion?
Prefer news filtered through U75, its always better
Newspapers were largely right wing pre-internet when they were bought by a much more diverse age range, so I don't think it's just about the preferences of old people. Clearly very rich people / businesses enjoy owning newspapers and political broadcasters like GB News because even now, it enables them to steer the national political debate.They make much, much less money than they used to and if by “big business influencing opinion” you mean PR and marketing, then spend targeting newspapers has declined vertiginously. Newspapers are largely right wing because they are bought by elderly folk who are convinced that the world is going to hell in a handcart, and value daily reassurance that their fears are well-founded. Nothing to do with business interests.
If there are sinister folk seeking to shape opinion, they do so via social media, at vast scale and little cost. The slight exception here is that it is traditional for rival Tory factions to communicate with Conservative party members via the Telegraph, but that’s not really about signalling anything to the public at large.
A six-week trial?
.They make much, much less money than they used to and if by “big business influencing opinion” you mean PR and marketing, then spend targeting newspapers has declined vertiginously. Newspapers are largely right wing because they are bought by elderly folk who are convinced that the world is going to hell in a handcart, and value daily reassurance that their fears are well-founded. Nothing to do with business interests.
If there are sinister folk seeking to shape opinion, they do so via social media, at vast scale and little cost. The slight exception here is that it is traditional for rival Tory factions to communicate with Conservative party members via the Telegraph, but that’s not really about signalling anything to the public at large.
Giving evidence at the Old Bailey for a second day, Marten said: "She's my pride and joy. I had four kids, I know how to look after children.
I think at least one was for similar reasons, they were living in a tent - social worker went to visit the tent and told them they couldn't take a newborn there so got her into a mother and baby home for a while.she seems generally delusional and to think none of it is remotely her fault. unless that's just how she's presenting.
has it been confirmed why her previous kids were removed?
That’s such a weird way of taking my comment.Fair dos. I just didn’t feel comfortable with pbsmooth’s woman blaming when there’s an ex rapist in the picture apparently blameless.
The jury has been deliberating for some 60 hours.
At 12.30pm on Monday, Judge Mark Lucraft KC gave the 10-strong jury a majority direction, saying he would accept verdicts on which nine of them were agreed.
A trial scheduled to last six weeks is in its fourth month: