You lied about someone in order to cause them harm. Even the Daily Mail will apologise when they've been caught libelling someone. They'll hide the apology as much as possible, but they'll apologise. You responded by more malicious misrepresentation (as well as continuing to use raped children as a political tool for smearing people). So you'd have to improve your ethics in order to write for the Daily Mail. But you probably could. They probably pay quite well for people with the right (for them) skills.
Had you replied saying that you "thought StriderX was unintentionally minimising the crime with his statement", that would have been very different. But you didn't. You lied about what they said. You're clearly capable of responding reasonably, so you chose not to do so. And by not doing so, you buried whatever point you might have had.
