User talk:89.176.207.147

This was neither defamatory nor poorly sourced.

It contained a direct quotation from the subject of the page, refuting any knowledge of the alleged actions – which were reported in numerous titles – by Fairbairn, a highly-public figure, whose affair with Rantzen is also a matter of record.

It was relevant due to the celebrity of both people concerned and Rantzen's profile with Childline – a charity set up to assist victims of child abuse.

It was not defamatory to Fairbairn as the deceased cannot be defamed in law. (I have qualifications and experience in these matters, something which the amateur editor clearly does not).

The Daily Mail is considered a mid-market newspaper, not fitting the classic description of tabloid, regardless of the editor's opinion of it.

It, for example, led the campaign to have the murderers of Stephen Lawrence brought to justice and its sister paper, the Evening Standard, is edited by a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It's website is also the most widely-read in the world.

So, I suggest a little more discretion before making unsupported allegations and throwing your weight around on Wikipedia. The editor may also wish to go outside occasionally.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11224413/How-the-child-sex-abuse-review-searched-for-key-names.html

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/sir-nicholas-fairbairn-in-child-abuse-scandal-link-1-3474912

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13174992.Former_judge_s_shock_over_QC_paedophile_ring_allegations/

April 2018
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)