Well, now Sophie can cry all the way to the bank with 175 Large to play with. I'm not a member of her fan club, but I have to say that paper copped what it deserved.

Valvegear, not apaid up member of Sophie's fan club, either. But it is refreshing to see the media, particularly print media held to account. Not unusual for an inaccurate headline to be printed, only to be followed up by a tiny retraction, buried down on page 14.
So the 175 large MIGHT promote more responsible editing.

While the headline and initial report taken literally would seem to have been inaccurate, there appears to have been some unsavoury behaviour by Sophie at the time that in the heat of the moment could have been misinterpreted.

Given that she then later attempted to collude with one of the witnesses and pervert the course of justice, I'm surprised at the high level of payout. I would have though a symbolic $1 would have sufficed.

Costs have not yet been awarded...

Goes to show even a Sbag (or whatever it was) can have costs awarded in their favour, where being called an Sbag (regardless of true or not) is determined to be NOT so - hence the verdict in their favour.

Find another way to hurt them ????

This only ended up this was because someone didn't do proper due diligence on their research, or have all their ducks lined up.....

Happy for the media to roll the dice. But get it wrong regardless of who/what the target is and why, then youbcop the tonne of bricks. Admit you effed up, and walk away!


Regards