Who needs truth when you have an agenda?

Unscrupulous lawyers have again forced Britain's third favourite newspaper to pay out tens of thousands of pounds in damages to amoral nogoodniks for alleged "false, defamatory and deeply offensive allegations" and hurt feelings.

The latest judgement against The Daily Mail was meted out after the 'victims' - three career women cynically earning more from their high-flying jobs than most men - claimed that an article published on November 5th last year was inaccurate in stating that they chose to adopt children instead of giving birth just to avoid jeopardising their careers and attractive, svelte figures.

The offending article, which has been removed from the Mail's online internet webpage, was headlined: 'For most women, giving birth is the most fulfilling event in their lives. But some are so afraid of missing out on their careers and losing their figures they refuse to go through pregnancy and choose adoption instead. Practical, or just plain selfish?'

The piece concluded that the made-up situation is, of course, 'just plain selfish' and that women who dare go to work after having children are latter-day Jezebels too arrogant to realise their proper place is in the home (specifically the kitchen, or the bedroom on Friday nights) Adoption, it said, presented a practical way for work obsessed females to continue earning while having a child around so they could chat with colleagues about private nurseries and size 1 designer shoes.

But despite invaluable coverage in a respected national newspaper, the women - Edwina Langley, Lisa Beard-Rogers and Thema Davis - were not satisfied with the article's contents.

Mrs Davis claimed that the Mail had neglected to add that she was in fact unable to conceive naturally and so adoption was the only available option, Mrs Beard-Rogers said that, contrary to the article's assertions, she was in fact considering a natural birth, and Mrs Langley claimed to have been misrepresented and, in fact, wished to adopt as she was not in a relationship and because she wanted to give a stable, loving home to an underprivileged child that might otherwise spend countless years in care.

A source said: 'Look, the details aren't important, it's the bigger issue that matters. And that issue is that women should have children the old fashioned way and stay at home. I don't know why people get so wound up with boring, pointless facts.'

After complaining to the Press Complaints Commission, the three women accepted a £30,000 payout from the Mail. The newspaper defended its honour by revealing that 'offending elements' of the piece had been added by 'an unnamed executive who controlled a rewrite of the story...rather than the journalists who interviewed the women', which makes it ok because it was bigger boys who did it not innocent Mail journalists who would never dream of making mean things up about women.

Paul Dacre said: 'Well, boys will be boys. I can't control every tiny little thing that gets written.'

The unsavoury incident follows a number of other high profile cases where women have claimed compensation for frivolous grievances that they brought upon themselves anyway: in February a blonde TV presenter sued the BBC after being fired two weeks after giving birth, and only a month before, a married Muslim woman took her employer to court for some light-hearted office banter and racist innuendo.

A local man said: 'Cuh. These women should know their limits.'

Another woman cries rape; Man's reputation ruined

Cuh. Women.

Tony from London said insightfully:


237 people agreed that Britain is indeed at risk of falling under the control of extremist right-wing Muslim feminazis who spend all their time asking for it before dragging their unsuspecting victims through the courts in the hope of receiving multi-million pound payouts. 112 fellow commenters also voiced their fury that a sex-crazed female man eating lawyer was able to bring the case to court in the first place.

Six months ago, a victim of an attempted rape wrote an article for The Daily Mail about the issue of rape victims receiving lower compensation payments if found to have been drunk when the crime was committed. The highly personal account of her experience, during which she was picked up and physically thrown down a flight of stairs because she resisted her attacker, concluded that 'there's a world of difference between being incapable and being culpable.'

The 'debate' received zero comments.