Kate Winslet won $41,000 in a case involving some allegations Daily Mail made about her in their publication. Now she can pay rent in case those Titanic residuals have run dry. Just kidding, please don't sue me, Kate :( I love you. Not in a stalker way, so no need for a restraining order either. Anyway, sources say:
Winslet, 34, sued the company over an article published in the Daily Mail newspaper in January called "Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the world's most irritating actress?"
The article had disputed Winslet's assertion that she did not attend a gym but exercised for 20 minutes or so each day at home, suggesting that the actress must have worked harder on her figure.
Her lawyer Rachel Atkins said the story, accompanied by several naked photographs of the actress in various films, was offensive in tone.
The article had disputed Winslet's assertion that she did not attend a gym but exercised for 20 minutes or so each day at home, suggesting that the actress must have worked harder on her figure.
Her lawyer Rachel Atkins said the story, accompanied by several naked photographs of the actress in various films, was offensive in tone.
As an esteemed, very professional journalist respected around the world, I typically side with the writers in cases like this, but Daily Mail seems to have gone a little too far. Although the publicity generated by this is probably worth more than $41,000, so who's really the winner here? Not me, I know that much.
