Scottish Mail apologises over asylum claims

The Scottish Daily Mail has published the following correction and apology, after a complaint from the Scottish Refugee Council:

In an article on January 25, 2013, headlined: "Crisis as Asylum Seekers target Scotland" we stated that asylum seekers were ‘targeting' Scotland. We now accept that asylum seekers are dispersed by the UK Border Agency on a ‘no choice' basis and would not be able to choose to live in Scotland. With the current rate of asylum applicants to the UK well within the average rate of the past ten years, we also accept that it is misleading to categorise this as a ‘crisis'. We are happy to clarify the position and apologise for the error.

According to the PCC:

The newspaper also agreed to: publish an article regarding the work of the Scottish Refugee Council; hold a meeting with the organisation; and inform editorial staff of the issues and concerns raised at the meeting.

'Corrections must be given more prominence'

The main headline on the front page of the Mail on 3 January stated there were '4,000 foreign murderers and rapists we can't throw out':

The first line of the story underneath proved the headline wasn't literally true:

Nearly 4,000 foreign murderers, rapists and other criminals are roaming the streets, free to commit more crimes.

A factcheck by the excellent Full Fact concluded:

After Full Fact contacted the UKBA, they confirmed that no published breakdown is available for the types of offences these people served a sentence for. Such information could be obtained by a freedom of information request, but no such requests seem to have been made.

So while we know that there are just under 4,000 foreign national offenders living in the community subject to deportation, there's no evidence as to how many of these are guilty of the offences being suggested. This doesn't sit well with the Mail's headline

Perhaps inevitably, then, there's a clarification in today's Mail, which confirms what Full Fact found three weeks ago:

The headline of an article on 3 January suggested that there are 4,000 foreign murderers and rapists in the UK who cannot be deported.

We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, the figure in fact refers to 3,980 foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists, who are currently subject to deportation orders.

In other words, when the Mail splashed '4,000 murderers and rapists' on its front page, it didn't actually know how many of that 4,000 were guilty of those crimes.

The clarification, however, did not make the front page, where the original error appeared so prominently. Mail editor Paul Dacre said at one of the Leveson seminars in October 2011:

I believe corrections must be given more prominence. As from next week, the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and Metro will introduce a "Corrections and Clarifications" column on page two of these papers.

He said this a couple of months after telling MPs that it was a 'great myth' that corrections are 'buried'.

But today's clarification didn't make page two either. The paper has devoted that page to their 'daily lottery' today. Instead, it's buried towards the bottom of page four:

Quite a difference when compared with the size of the original error - especially from a paper whose editor said that corrections 'must be given more prominence'. 

(Thanks to Nick, Steve and Lee for help with the page four image)

Leveson on the 'discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced' reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.  

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as 'Muslim Only Public Loos', 'Terror Target Sugar', 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' and 'Muslim Plot To Kill Pope'. 

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including 'Swan Bake', 'Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys' and 'Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay...because he goes to the GYM' all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672): 

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

 

Sun admits single Italian isn't Bulgarian father-of-seven

On 13 October, the Sun published the following apology:

Salvatore Quero

In a story headlined ‘Greedy Bulgars’ (September 11), Salvatore Quero, a single Italian man, was identifiable in a photograph as part of a Bulgarian family claiming benefits.

We are happy to clarify that Mr Quero is not a member of the family and was simply providing them with food.

The Sun's website still carries the photo:

However, the caption has now been changed to:

Benefits takeaway ... concerned male passer-by helps family enjoy food from McDonald's.

Now that they know that the single Italian in the photo isn't the Bulgarian father-of-seven. 

Homeless charities respond to 'misleading' claim hostels are 'full of Somalis and Poles'

Last month, a blogpost by Allan Mallinson in the RightMinds section of MailOnline appeared under the headline:

He said:

I had known that perhaps up to 25% of the homeless were veterans, a disturbing enough statistic.

He told the story of Stephen, who had been in the army for 17 years. Mallinson wrote:

He had been to SSAFA, to Citizens Advice etc, who signposted him on, and then to ‘Shelter’. And here’s where the story really begins to disgust – to say the least.

He said that all the civilian shelters were full of Somalis and Poles – which my friend tells me, according to her colleagues in the charity sector, is true, except that in rural areas it is more Somalis than Poles.

Jeremy Swain, chief executive of the homelessness charity Thames Reach, left a comment under the post calling it 'grossly misleading'. He then wrote to the PCC to complain:

"I wish to put in a complaint concerning a Daily Mail article headlined ‘As thousands of servicemen are made redundant, how many will be turned away from homeless shelters that are packed full of immigrants’.

I believe this article breaches both section 1 on accuracy and section 12 on discrimination of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice for Editors. These stipulate that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information and that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to people’s race or nationality.

I strongly support efforts to help British armed services veterans to escape homelessness, but this article misrepresents and distorts what is really happening in respect to the total number of homeless veterans and who is entitled to live in hostels for the homeless, whilst inciting racial hatred.

The article is inaccurate on a number of different points:

It suggests that up to 25 per cent of the homeless were armed forces veterans – the latest data for London compiled by outreach workers across the capital indicates that 6%, not 25% of rough sleepers have a background in the armed forces. Furthermore, approximately half of these rough sleepers actually served in the armed forces of Central and Eastern European countries.

See link for details of the rough sleeping Chain data for London’s rough sleepers which contains this information.

Elsewhere, the article suggests 'the civilian shelters were full of Somalis and Poles'. This is inaccurate as whilst many people from overseas end up sleeping rough, they cannot access homeless hostel bed spaces as they have no rights to the benefits which would pay their rent. Quite simply, unless someone has paid national insurance contributions for over a year, they won't be found accommodation in hostels and other ways of helping them are being sought within the homelessness sector. Hostels are not 'full of Somalis and Poles' as the article’s author states. Indeed they make up a very tiny minority of the hostel population.

The article then states that 'unless you have an address you cannot receive benefits' which adds to the impression that veterans are doubly disadvantaged as they are left on the street and unable to claim benefit. This is an urban myth. People sleeping rough are entitled to benefits if they are UK citizens and can provide appropriate identification.

The article then suggests 'charities are being overwhelmed by immigrant need to the exclusion of our own'. This is simply not the case. Homeless hostels only cater for those entitled to benefits which include British army veterans. Additionally some local authorities such as Southwark, Edinburgh, Wandsworth and Westminster are introducing or have introduced additional clauses to give priority to ex-services personnel which gives them priority to housing.

This article is wholly inaccurate and in my view is intended to create an impression of entitlement to services which benefit some national groups (Somalis and Poles) at the expense of services personal from the UK. As such it is likely to lead to racial discrimination against non-UK nationals and possibly assaults on people from central and eastern Europe and other parts of the world who are vulnerable through living destitute on our streets."

Inside Housing reports that five complaints have been sent to the PCC, and:

Forty homelessness organisations signed a letter to Daily Mail Online refuting the blog’s claims.

Their letter stated:

‘To imply that veterans are being denied help because hostels are “overwhelmed by immigrant need” is misleading’.

The RightMinds blog has already published an article from Matt Harrison, director of the charity Homeless Link, challenging Mallinson. Will the PCC regard that as sufficient remedy?

(Hat-tip to Ivan)

UPDATE (14 July): Mallinson's article was updated yesterday, and two bullet point corrections were added to the end. They say:

• An earlier version of this article stated that an address is required to claim benefits. We are happy to point out that this is, in fact, incorrect. Homeless people can claim benefits without having a formal residence.
• We are also happy to point out that a 2008 report by the Royal British Legion puts the estimate of homeless people with armed services' backgrounds at 6%.

Meanwhile, the sentence that originally read:

He said that all the civilian shelters were full of Somalis and Poles – which my friend tells me, according to her colleagues in the charity sector, is true, except that in rural areas it is more Somalis than Poles.

Has suddenly become:

He said that in all the civilian shelters there were Somalis and Poles – which my friend tells me, according to her colleagues in the charity sector, is true. 

This has been very quietly changed - but surely this change should be noted in a bullet point at the end too. Moreover, why has the MailOnline not also changed the claim in the headline that homeless shelters are 'packed full of immigrants'?

EC challenges Mail over English tests for health workers

On 31 March, the Mail published an article by John Naish under the headline: 'The doctor and nurses putting lives at risk because they can't speak English'.

It included this passage:

Yet, far from tackling this dangerous situation, the European Union is set to reinforce rules which ban English tests for doctors and nurses from the EU before they are allowed to work here, branding it a ‘restraint of free movement’ of workers.

The European directive, currently being debated in Brussels, insists that British employers can only test medics from Europe after their poor English has endangered patient care, flagging ‘serious and concrete doubt about the professional’s sufficient language knowledge’.

It concluded:

Sadly, if the EU gets its way, it’s clear we cannot be sure that hospital staff will speak decent conversational English, let alone the sort of complex technical terminology that can save lives, or at the very least, not put them in danger.

This led the EC Representative in the UK to write a letter to the Mail:

Contrary to Paul Naish’s article in the Mail on 31 March, there is nothing in EU law that prevents the UK from checking the language skills of doctors and nurses from elsewhere in the EU. There is no “new Brussels Directive against language checks”. Instead, proposed revisions to EU rules will make even clearer that all EU-qualified health professionals can be subject to checks before they take up a post. Far from EU law “taking precedence” over the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans to reinforce such checks, the European Commission has welcomed those plans.

Mark English, Head of Media

The Mail did publish this letter, in slightly edited form - but only on page 83. It has not been added to the end of the online article.

The EC in the UK adds:

The newspaper did not contact the European Commission before publication.

£600,000 not £5million

The Scottish Daily Mail has published this PCC-negotiated apology:

In December the Mail reported that over £5 million was being spent on last-ditch legal bids - judicial reviews - by asylum seekers to remain in Scotland. We are happy to make clear that this figure reflects the combined sums spent on advice and assistance (£3.5 million), assistance by way of representation (£1 million), and legal aid (£0.6 million) to asylum seekers and immigrants. The cost of legal aid work on judicial reviews falls within the latter figure. We apologise if readers were misled by our original story.

'If'.

Mail 'sets the record straight' on another Littlejohn column

On 5 August, Richard Littlejohn wrote:

From time to time I may have written about both asylum seekers and wheelie bins. But never before in the same sentence. Until now.

Six illegal immigrants have been detained by a border patrol in Calais. The four men and two women, all from Vietnam, were discovered hiding in a consignment of wheelie bins bound for Britain. They were detected stowed away in the back of a Polish-registered lorry by a vigilant sniffer dog called Jake.

Asylum seekers hiding in wheelie bins in a Polish lorry. What a perfect metaphor for modern Britain.

On 16 August he returned to the same story:

Another snapshot of modern, multicultural Britain, coming hard on the heels of the story about those Vietnamese asylum seekers caught hiding in wheelie bins in a Polish lorry.

There was no evidence these six people were asylum seekers, having been caught in France before they reached the UK. The UKBA news report certainly never called them asylum seekers but 'would-be illegal immigrants'. 

But Littlejohn called them 'illegal immigrants' and 'asylum seekers' interchangeably. The PCC's guidance on refugees and asylum seekers states that journalists should be:

mindful of the problems that can occur and take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology.

A complaint was made to the PCC asking that they look into Littlejohn's use of these terms. It was sent on the evening of 15 August, after Littlejohn's second article had been posted online.

By 19 September the complainant had received no reply from the PCC or the Mail. So he contacted the PCC again, asking what was happening.

On 23 September - nearly six weeks after the original complaint was made - the Mail finally responded with a letter from Managing Editor Alex Bannister.

The Mail had acted to correct the error, replacing 'asylum seekers' with 'illegal immigrants' in each article, and marking the archive with a note. Bannister said he had reminded 'Littlejohn and our other reporters' of the need to avoid such 'confusion'. He also apologised for the delay in replying, but gave no explanation for it.

The complainant said he would like some explanation for it and also asked for the Mail to admit in print it had corrected the articles.

Bannister's reply came through on 7 October. He said he had been away on annual leave and then had much to catch up on his return but admitted this was 'no excuse'. He also offered to print a clarification.

The complainant accepted the wording of the clarification that was offered and said he looked forward to seeing it in the Mail's new corrections column soon.

On 18 October, around 6pm, the Mail sent a revised wording to the PCC which was sent on to the complainant.

Before he could reply, he received another email at 7:46pm, in which the Mail explained it was hoping to run the clarification on Wednesday and they had changed the wording again.

Fifteen minutes later, another email from the Mail and yet another amendment to the wording.

The complainant agreed to this and so on Wednesday 19 October, the Mail published this:

Commentary articles on 5 and 16 August referred to six individuals apprehended in France who were attempting to enter Britain in wheelie bins on a lorry as asylum seekers when they should have been described as illegal immigrants.

We are happy to set the record straight.

By this time, the Daily Mail's 'Clarifications and corrections' column had been running for three days and this was the second clarification for something Richard Littlejohn had written.

It is also the second time this blog has covered a complaint about a Littlejohn column that has been met with a month-long silence from the Mail.

That darn cat!

After two years and one political spat, the claim that a cat saved a man from deportation refuses to go away.

It dates back to a Sunday Telegraph article from 17 October 2009 which had the headline 'Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat'. The following day, the Mail, Express, Sun and Star all ran the story, the Express going with the headline 'Got a cat? OK, you can stay'.

The story was then repeated by columnists including Richard Littlejohn, Amanda Platell, Sue Carroll and Eamonn Holmes, who stated:

If you are an illegal immigrant facing deportation from the UK then don't worry - just tell the authorities that you have a cat and they will let you stay.

Except, they won't, because - as Dominic Casciani makes clear - that isn't what happened. The Telegraph's Tom Chivers explains:

There never was someone who could not be deported because he had a pet cat. It goes back to a Bolivian student (not an illegal immigrant) who applied to stay in this country. In his application, he does indeed mention a pet cat. But he was granted leave to remain in Britain as "the unmarried partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom", not as the owner of a British cat. Under UK Border Agency rules (not the Human Rights Act), if a couple has lived together for two years in "a genuine and subsisting relationship akin to marriage", they have a right to stay, regardless of whether they're married.

Yet the cat has popped up occasionally since 2009. In March 2011, a text to the Daily Star made a 'joke' of it. It was mentioned again in the Star on 14 July, in the Mirror on 13 June and in a Daily Mail editorial on 20 June.

And on Tuesday, Home Secretary Theresa May said:

“We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act...The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.”

As Kevin Arscott noted, she was right to say she wasn't 'making this up' - instead, she was repeating something that wasn't correct that had appeared in several newspapers.

But it had been debunked. The lawyer in the case, Barry O'Leary, was quoted saying the cat was 'immaterial' - including on on Radio Five Live - but this was either ignored or overlooked.

As Adam Wagner of UK Human Rights Blog, writes:

Put it this way. If I had a client who was facing deportation and I wanted to show that the simple fact that he had a cat meant that he should stay, and I tried to use the Bolivian cat judgment as a precedent, I would be laughed out of court.

Following May's speech the Judicial Communications Office reissued their two-year old statement which pointed out:

"This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.

"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

But that didn't stop today's Daily Mail claiming it had the 'truth':

A judge allowed an illegal immigrant to dodge deportation because he feared separating him from his cat risked ‘serious emotional consequences’, it emerged yesterday.

The human rights ruling, obtained by the Daily Mail, vindicates Home Secretary Theresa May over the ‘cat-gate’ row with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke at the Tory Conference.

She claimed that the cat, Maya, was a key reason behind the decision to let the man, a Bolivian national, stay in Britain

They were so sure of their version of events, they put it on the front page.

Yet on page 17, even their own columnist wasn't even convinced. Stephen Glover said May was:

partly misinformed as well as uninformed

Back to the front page article, however, and there was the inevitable clarification towards the end, in which the Mail admitted:

the Bolivian – whose name is blacked out in the court documents – won on different grounds at a later hearing which found the department had not followed its own rules.

Today, Barry O'Leary has issued a lengthy riposte to the Mail and others. He says:

The Judicial Office has already made a statement in this matter and I wish to give my support to that statement.

The case referred to was not decided on the basis of ownership of a cat. It was decided on the basis of a Home Office policy which the Home Office themselves had failed to apply. This was accepted by the Home Office before the Immigration Judge. The Home Office agreed the appeal should be allowed. The ownership of a cat was immaterial to the final decision made. Any press reports to the contrary are not based on fact.

The Mail claimed:

Yesterday it was revealed that the Bolivian not only argued that he would suffer from being separated from his cat, but also that his pet’s quality of life would be affected.

But O'Leary replies:

I stress that it was not argued at any point by this firm, nor by my client, that he would 'suffer from being separated from his cat' nor that 'the pet's quality of life would be affected.' Our arguments were based on the long-term committed nature of the couple's relationship. Their ownership of a cat was just one detail amongst many given to demonstrate the genuine nature of their relationship.

He continues:

It was, in fact, the official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary who, when writing the letter of refusal, stated that the cat could relocate to Bolivia and cope with the quality of life there. This statement was not in response to any argument put forward by this firm or my client (and was, frankly, rather mischievous on behalf of the official).

The appeal against the refusal was successful and, when giving judgment, because the reasons for refusal did refer to the cat the judge commented on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. However, it was not the reason for allowing the appeal. The appeal was allowed because of the couple's relationship, and the judge also relied on the Home Office policy that had not been applied.  

There is one further problem with the Mail running this story today. When the paper mentioned the cat on 20 June, a complaint was made to the Press Complaints Commission. The complainant stated that as Mr O'Leary had already made clear the cat was 'immaterial', the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

As the complainant was a third party, the PCC contacted Mr O'Leary who told them that his client did not want to make a complaint about the article. Without the participation of the subject of the story, the PCC did not feel able to adjudicate on the complaint.

But in its conclusion, it said:

The Commission fully acknowledged the concerns raised by the complainant in regard to the accuracy of the article...

While it emphasised that the complainant’s concerns were indeed legitimate, it did not consider, in the absence of the participation of the Bolivian man or his representative, that it was in a position to investigate the matter, not least because it would not be possible to release any information about the outcome of the investigation or resolve the matter without the input of the man.

That said, it recognised that the complainant had raised concerns which had a bearing on the accuracy of the claim made in the article and, as such, it trusted that the newspaper would take heed of the points raised in the complaint and bear them in mind for future coverage. 

Today's Daily Mail goes to prove how much the paper 'takes heed' of what the PCC says.

(More from Channel 4 Fact Check, Full Fact, David Allen Green, Alan Travis, Adam Wagner, Alex Massie, Ed West and Minority Thought)

Net migration, not immigration

The front page headline on today's Express claims 'Immigration soars 20% in a year':

The article that follows, by the paper's political correspondent Martyn Brown, continues with this line:

The number of foreigners coming into Britain surged by a massive 21 per cent last year, shattering the Government’s pledge to bring immigration down.

Official figures yesterday showed the number of immigrants soared to 239,000 – up from 198,000 in 2009.

But what Brown and the Express are calling 'immigration' is, in fact, net migration. It was net migration that rose 21% between 2009 and 2010.

As the Office for National Statistics report states:

The provisional estimate of net long-term migration to the UK in the year to December 2010 was 239,000, an increase of 21 per cent on the estimate of 198,000 in the year to December 2009...

The provisional estimate of total long-term international immigration to the UK in the year to December 2010 was 575,000. This level has been broadly maintained since 2004.

Indeed, far from increasing by 21%, the rise in the number of immigrants coming to the UK rose by 1.4% between 2009 and 2010.

The Express was not alone in getting this wrong. The Mail's website used almost the same headline ('Immigration soared by 20% last year') although the print version used a different, more accurate one. The Mirror and Independent used similarly misleading headlines although both used 'net migration' in the first sentence of their articles.

The Press Complaints Commission's guidance note on refugees and asylum seekers states:

The Commission is concerned that editors should ensure that their journalists covering these issues are mindful of the problems that can occur and take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology.

(Hat-tips to Full Fact, Left Foot Forward and New Statesman)

Express: 'ban migrants'

The front page headline on today's Daily Express screams:


'Britain must ban migrants'.

Macer's Hall article goes on to favourably report the words of Labour peer Lord Glasman, which were published by the Telegraph yesterday. Shouldn't the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' have got the interview first, rather than treating it as front page news a day later?

Here's what the Telegraph reported:

Glasman has previously accused New Labour of lying about the extent of immigration. Now he goes further, arguing – in terms more radical than the Conservative front bench would dare use – that Britain should renegotiate the rules on European workers and freeze inward migration for EU and non-EU citizens, except where employers or universities make a case for a specific, skilled individual.

"We've got to reinterrogate our relationship with the EU on the movement of labour. The EU has gone from being a sort of pig farm subsidised bloc... to the free movement of labour and capital. It's legalistic, it's administrative, and it's no good. So I think we've got to renegotiate with the EU.

His call is to restrict immigration to necessary entrants such as highly skilled leaders, especially in vocational skills. "We might, for example, bring in German masters, as we did in the 15th and 16th centuries to renew guilds."

But exemptions should be made on a case-by-case basis? "Yes. We should absolutely do that... Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first." Even if that means stopping immigration completely for a period? "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

So although Glasman does say a temporary halt to immigration might be necessary, he seems to contradict that by saying that he does still want to allow in people with specific skills and that:

we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed.

Yet the Express have turned 'restrict immigration to necessary entrants' and 'more generous and friendly to those who are needed' into 'ban migrants' - whatever that might mean.

But this headline isn't really about Glasman's words. It's about what the Express thinks and wants. It's in much the same vein as their 'Keep out, Britain is full up' front page from 23 September 2009 and their use of 'ethnics' in July 2010, and it's insidious stuff.

Mail corrects migrant numbers error

The Mail has published a correction to one of its articles about migration:

This article has been amended. It previously contained a graphic that correctly listed the latest annual number of non-EU nationals admitted to each of ten European countries. However, a second table was wrongly headed "Non EU citizens to each square kilometre" instead of "Number of people to each square kilometre". We are happy to correct this point.

How clumsy. As the PCC explains:

The complainant was concerned that as a result of the error readers would be misled into thinking that Britain was home to many more non-EU immigrants than was actually the case.

The cat returns

In last Friday's Daily Star, a reader's text showed how stories that aren't true can nonetheless be believed and repeated as fact:

so gamu nhengu faces deportation. tell her to...get a cat. that should do it! [sic]
bresso

It was in October 2009 when a story appeared claiming that an 'illegal immigrant' had been saved from deportation because he had a cat. It started in the Sunday Telegraph, and was then repeated by the Mail, Sun, Express and Star, and in columns by Littlejohn, Platell, Holmes and others.

Despite the man's lawyer being quoted in the original article (and explaining on this blog) that the cat was 'immaterial' to the case, the story went on and on.

And 17 months later, the Star reader's text shows some people still believe it did actually happen.

(Many thanks to the comment spotter)

Twisting words to fit an agenda

Today's Daily Star story Egypt 'flight' to UK claims:

Thousands of illegal immigrants will flee riot-torn Egypt and flood to Britain, the leader of Nato has warned.

Paul Robins' article continues:

Many refugees are desperate to escape and head here to milk the benefits system.

Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 58, said the riots will fuel an “illegal migration wave” across the EU.

And the majority will head straight to Britain on the promise of free housing and better jobs.

In the first two sentences, the terms illegal immigrants and refugees are used interchangeably. And the claims about milking benefits and getting jobs and free houses are the usual inflammatory tabloid-fodder.

But did Rasmussen actually say that 'thousands of illegal immigrants' from Egypt were going to 'flood to Britain' in an 'illegal migration wave' as the Star states? Here's NATO's transcript:

Having said that, I do not consider the situation in Egypt or Tunisia, or elsewhere as a direct threat to NATO allies or the Alliance as such. But obviously the evolving situation in the Middle East and North Africa may have an impact on the Middle East peace process, and instability in the region as such may also, in a longer term perspective, have a negative impact on economy, which might lead to illegal immigration in Europe, etc. So of course indirectly there may be a negative impact on Europe caused by the evolving situation in North Africa and the Middle East. But I do not consider the situation as a direct threat to NATO.

Rasmussen didn't mention Britain. It's also clear he's not singling out Egyptians, but saying long-term instability might lead to illegal immigration from the region. He didn't mention any number. He certainly didn't make reference to benefits or jobs or houses. And he did say 'might' rather than 'will'.

So the Star have turned Rasmussen's words from this:

instability in the region...might lead to illegal immigration in Europe

Into this:

Thousands of illegal immigrants will flee riot-torn Egypt and flood to Britain

They were helped in this by yesterday's Mail, which is why the story only appears in the Star today. The Mail's original headline claimed Hosni Mubrarak turmoil 'will fuel illegal wave UK migration' warns Nato - a slightly random collection of some of the paper's favourite words.

This has been changed to Egypt's turmoil 'will fuel illegal migration wave', head of Nato warns. Since NATO's transcript of the press conference contains no mention of the word 'wave' it seems that Star have put it in quote marks simply because the Mail did.

'Scribble'

Richard Littlejohn said on Friday:

Gloucester City Council is sending out census forms in no fewer than 56 different languages.

Technically, they're leaflets to help complete the census not the forms themselves, which are in English.

But then he adds this charming statement:

...why waste time and public money printing leaflets in 56 ­different languages, many of them scribble?

Feeble PCC fails to take on Littlejohn

At the end of September, Richard Littlejohn wrote:

...any Afghan climbing off the back of a lorry in Dover goes automatically to the top of the housing list.

Blogger Primly Stable called Littlejohn a 'liar' and complained to the Press Complaints Commission. This claim not only breached the first clause of the Code of Practice about publication of 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information' but also conflicted with a PCC guidance note on reporting immigration issues that warns of:

the danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that despite all that, the PCC ruled there was little wrong with what Littlejohn had said:

The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern over the statement; however, it had to consider the remark in the context of the article in which it appeared. The article had been clearly presented as a comment piece, in which the columnist expressed his concern that a soldier who had served in Afghanistan had not been granted a council house. The Commission considered that the columnist had exaggerated and simplified the example of housing immigrants for the purpose of stressing his assertion that the “system of government exists simply to punish those who do the right thing”.

It emphasised that the newspaper should take care when using such rhetorical methods of expression that readers would not be misled into understanding that they reflected statements of fact.

In this instance, on balance it considered that readers would be aware that the columnist was not accurately reflecting the government’s policy on the housing of immigrants, but that he was making an amplified statement for rhetorical effect. It was therefore the Commission’s view that, on this occasion, readers generally would not be misled in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

In its favour, the ruling does accuse Littlejohn of exaggeration and simplicity. But the rest of it defies belief.

Although the PCC regards that as the end of the matter, Primly Stable does not. She has challenged the PCC to back up its claim that readers would not be mislead or think the situation outlined by Littlejohn is merely 'rhetorical'.

She points out that on the original news story on the Mail website that Littlejohn was commenting on, there are lots of positively-rated comments which suggest otherwise. Such as:

“He should just have told that council he was an illegal immigrant from Afghanistan....And he would have been housed immediately!!”

“expect no better from Bracknell Forest Council, because they are fast-tracking immigrants to the head of the housing queue ... just the same as all councils throughout Britain are daily doing”

“He should go back to Aghanistan, throw away his British passport and come back as a 'refugee'. Apartment in Mayfair awaits him.”

And then there are these recent Mail articles about migrants and 'queue jumping':


A drip-drip-drip of stories claiming migrants do jump the housing queue. So on what basis does the PCC think Mail readers would not take Littlejohn's claim literally?

Primly Stable compares this ruling with a recent resolved case where the Sunday Telegraph had to say:

We have been asked to make clear that the Metamorphosis Centre in west London (report, June 13) is not Britain's first to treat thumb sucking.

She says:

The [PCC] proudly boasts of its rapid response to the shocking inaccuracy that led to one organisation being called “the first specialist thumb-sucking clinic in London” when in fact it was the second. But it is happy to give the seal of approval to a newspaper that publishes lies in order to whip up racial tensions.

Adding:

Had Littlejohn compared the soldier’s situation with, for example, a convicted criminal who had been released from prison and promptly housed in local authority accommodation than he may have had some grounds to claim that he was making a point about people who “do the right thing” losing out. But he didn’t. He chose to make something up entirely. To lie. And with this ruling the PCC has said such conduct is perfectly acceptable.

Woman dyes hair

At one stage today, the Mail website homepage contained eleven 'stories' about The X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. In total, they have published 13 articles about these two shows just today, some of which were spread over pages 10 and 11 of the newspaper.

(By contrast, the Mail has not produced one single article about the death of Jimmy Mubenga, despite their usual obsession with immigration issues.)

But in the 'pointless-stories-giving-free-publicity-to-TV-shows' stakes, Saturday's Sun will take some beating. They went with 'woman dyes hair, prepares for TV show':


Even Sky News presenter Matt Smith was unimpressed. He said, with a sigh:

Yes, that's really on the front of the Sun.

Links

The latest migration figures have, predictably, led to a flurry of newspaper articles, not all of them entirely accurate.

Exclarotive looks at a misleading Mail headline while Five Chinese Crackers looks at the article that followed. He has also written two posts looking into claims about England's population density and an earlier piece in the Mail linking immigration to crime.

The discovery of the body of spy Gareth Williams has led to a lot of guesswork from journalists. Minority Thought looks at some of the speculation from the Sun ('it was al-Qaeda') and the Mail, while Primly Stable 'learns' that Williams:

was stabbed, poisoned and strangled to death by a gay-slaying Al-Qaeda agent who was a colleague and a friend and police fear that secrets that were not stolen from his flat could be sold to Britain's enemies.

It's not surprising that Williams' uncle criticised the speculation:

"When you have these rumours in the papers, it is most distressing. It is heartbreaking that he has died so young and his family have enough on their plate without having to read these stories.

"Gareth's parents are not doing well at all. They are in a state of shock and struggling to come to terms with what has happened. They have seen what has been in the papers and they are very, very upset about these untruths."

Unfortunately, as with the Stephen Griffiths case in May, the media seems to relish spreading lurid gossip rather than sticking to the facts.

Indeed, Matt Lucas has launched a legal action against the Daily Mail for an intrusive and untrue article about the death of his former civil partner Kevin McGee:

Lucas contends that close relatives and friends quoted in the story did not make the statements attributed to them and that much of the information was false.

The story claimed Lucas was planning to have a big birthday party. According to the writ, Lucas had already told friends and family he would not celebrate his birthday this year and was out of the country at the time.

The writ said Lucas was particularly distressed by allegations that he blamed himself for McGee’s death and was hosting a party to “let go of the pain”. Both claims were untrue, it said.

Lucas, who instructed London law firm Schillings to act on his behalf, said Associated Newspapers, owner of the Mail, had refused to apologise or accept the story should not have been published.

Meanwhile, the Mirror, Mail and Express have been making exaggerated claims about grapefruit, as Minority Thought reports. The Express' headline stated 'Eat grapefruit to fight off diabetes' although Jo Willey's article later admitted:

to get the beneficial effect, someone would need to eat 400 grapefruits in one sitting.

Moreover, NHS Behind the Headlines pointed out that:

consuming too much grapefruit can interfere with people’s drug treatment and cause harmful effects.

While the Express loves miracle cure stories, the Mail website loves articles pointing out a famous person has lost/gained too much weight. The paper asks today 'Why ARE women so unhappy in their own skin?' (own?). Maybe some of their recent articles, as highlighted by Angry Mob, are to blame?

At Enemies of Reason, Anton has written three posts about mental health. While the Sun has tried to avoid 'bonkers' by using 'zany', 'weird' and 'wacky' instead, the Star has no such qualms about using the word, splashing it all over the front page.

Also from Anton, a post about a Sun front page story reporting a crocodile sighting in the English Channel. Having written two sensationalist articles about the 'killer croc' the Sun should have admitted that it was, in fact, a piece of wood. But it appears to have forgotten to set the record straight.

It's not the only bit of forgetfulness from a Murdoch-owned paper. George Eaton at New Statesman explains how The Times' readers might not have seen the criticisms of Sky from BBC Director-General Mark Thompson during his speech at the Edinburgh Festival because of the paper's selective, partial reporting.

A disgrace

The Express' front page for Thursday:


More on this once the story gets posted in the morning. But the use of the word 'rob' is clearly hugely problematic and exceptionally inflammatory.

For now, a reminder of what the PCC's guidance note on reporting on immigration says:

Similarly, the Commission – in previous adjudications under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code – has underlined the danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts.

UPDATE: Inevitably, the Express' article (and editorial) was based on (copied and pasted from) a Migrationwatch briefing paper. Sarah Mulley has explained 'Why Migrationwatch is wrong' in a blogpost for New Statesman.

Immigration story slips into Express unchecked

On 4 August, the Express ran this box-ticking headline:


Immigration? Check. Illegal immigrants on the loose? Check. Open borders? Check. Police can't do their job because of political correctness? Check.

But that headline is misleading for two reasons.

Firstly, the report in question was not about 'illegal immigrants' slipping in 'unchecked' but about what happens in custody suites when the police arrest foreign nationals.

Secondly, racism is only mentioned once in the whole 33 page report.

What is immediately notable about Martyn Brown's article is that it doesn't include a single direct quote from the Home Office's Determining Identity and Nationality in Local Policing report and so nothing that backs up his opening assertion that:

Thousands of illegal immigrants are routinely freed instead of deported because police fear they will be branded racist if they question a suspect’s nationality.

It's also important to note that the report was based on evidence collected from 14 custody suites in 2006-7 and makes clear:

since then the police and the UK Border Agency have implemented a range of actions designed to improve the practices involved in checking the nationality and migrant status of arrestees.

The Express includes a quote to that effect as the last line of their article - online, it is separated from the rest of the story by a conveniently placed search bar - but the headline and opening paragraphs strongly suggest that this is the situation now.

The report also adds:

The introduction of enhanced checking processes led to a marked increase in both the level of checks undertaken in each pilot site, and in the number of IMs or SIMs identified.

The number of individuals who had their details checked by the UK Border Agency across the four pilot sites increased by over 400 per cent, from 129 checks in the three months prior to the pilots to 650 checks in total across the four sites during the pilots.

So does the 'racism' claim stand up? Well, it certainly is mentioned in the report as one of:

a number of circumstances that could result in officers failing to check an individual’s status effectively, either before or after arrest.

But the Express doesn't point out it is only one of seven reasons, and doesn't mention the other six. Here they are:

• An arrestee being perceived as compliant or nonconfrontational.
• An arrestee who was familiar to officers through repeated encounters over a period of years was (at times wrongly) assumed to have a legitimate immigration status.
• An arrestee’s details had previously been taken and logged on the PNC. Generally, these details were accepted, unless there was substantive evidence to hand to cast doubt on the accuracy of the record.
• Arrestees who looked like they belonged to a well established local ethnic minority or FN population could escape scrutiny.
• In some sites there was a marked reluctance to challenge arrestees who claimed to be British, even though officers suspected that the claims might be false. This reluctance was commonly ascribed to the fear that any such challenge could result in an accusation of racism.
• There was some confusion over which nations currently constituted the EEA or the EU. In the majority of sites, claims to EEA citizenship were not challenged.
• Officers were often unable to form a sound judgement about the likely credibility of identity or travel documentation presented to them, and did not always initiate further checks when appropriate.

So there were many reasons why police checks on foreign nationals in custody were not always as comprehensive as they should have been.

But in some places, four years ago, some police were worried they might be accused of racism if they questioned an arrestee who claimed to be British.

Yet the Express turns that into 'Illegal immigrants slip in unchecked as police fear charges of racism' and 'politically correct regulations' (whatever they are) leading to 'thousands of illegal immigrants' strolling free.