Daily Mail Pays Off Koo Stark

The real world as inhabited by the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker, striving away under the less than benign direction of the Mail titles’ editor in chief, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, includes the frequent calculation as to whether those they smear and defame will take legal action as a result. This week revealed another case where they miscalculated.

Koo Stark

Showing that, when it comes to the Royals, it’s not just Haz and Megs that the Dacre Doggies go after, the Daily Mail targeted the Duke of York in late 2019, and the resulting article, along with its nudge-nudge headlines, but either without the basic research that would have shown it to be defamatory, or the possible decision to publish anyway, got through the entire editing process, and was presumably legalled. Its target was one Koo Stark.

Those of A Certain Age will remember Prince Andrew’s friendship with Ms Stark, a model, actress and photographer, in the early 1980s. What can also be discovered without too much trouble is that, while she starred in at least one film categorised as “erotic”, she was not a porn star.

That did not stop the Mail telling its readers “Embarrassing stunts. Shocking misjudgements. And VERY shady friends. Photos that prove Andrew's always been a … Duke of Hazard” and photos of the Duke with Ms Stark alongside the caption “The Prince and the porn star”. So with the inevitability of night following day, Ms Stark instructed lawyers, with the equally inevitable result.

Two years after the article saw the light of day, the Mail has caved, possibly at the door of the court. “We accept that Ms Stark is not a 'very shady' porn star and has never participated in any pornographic enterprise, nor would a relationship with her be a 'shocking misjudgement'. In fact, she was a professional actress appearing in film, TV and on stage. We apologise to Ms Stark for the distress caused and have agreed to pay her substantial damages and her legal costs” is the grovelling apology.

What also comes clear from nothing more than a perusal of Ms Stark’s Wikipedia entry is that, one, she has had no compunction in instructing lawyers in the past, including against the Mail titles, and two, she has successfully sued at least one publication that called her a “porn star”.

What the f***'s wrong with press freedom, c***?!?!?

Here’s the Wiki entry on the latter claim: “In another libel action in 2007, Stark won an apology and substantial damages from Zoo Weekly magazine, which had described her as a porn star. She commented ‘I am relieved that my name has been cleared of this false, highly damaging and serious allegation which has been proved to be completely untrue’”. And the Mail titles?

Here it comes: “In 1988, Stark brought a successful libel action against The Mail on Sunday over an untrue story headed 'Koo dated Andy after she wed’”. Which strongly suggests that the Mail titles knew full well that their article was libellous, and knew that Ms Stark would sue. But they still published. That article went through all those hands. And they all approved it.

Why? Because the penalty imposed by the courts, or in this case the cost of settling an action before it gets to the court, is deemed worth it: the Mail titles carry on defaming their targets in the knowledge that what ordinary people would find ruinously expensive is mere petty cash to the Dacre doggies.

As to the level of harm and distress caused, the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker - and those at other papers - long ago ceased to care. For them, freedom of speech means freedom to say what they want, when they want, about whom they want, whether or not it is true.

The only interest the Mail serves is its own. Any claim otherwise is bunk.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton