Angry Mob has revealed how the latest PC gone mad story from the Mail - about parents being banned from playgrounds - has been rejected by the very Council accused.
He also explains how the story of a man's death has been twisted by both the Mail and the Mirror to make it something it wasn't.
Anton reveals the latest anti-Muslim nonsense from the Express, as the paper goes to Islam4Uk for yet another story. It's almost as if the Express can't function without reporting on loudmouths spouting deliberately inflammatory crap, and the loudmouths no doubt enjoy seeing their utternaces in a national newspaper.
Anton has also written about the Mail's quite unbelievably hypocritical article complaining about naked female flesh on the cover of men's magazines. This is the same website, which has this pic on it.
At Hagley Road to Ladywood, Claude has pointed out that the Mail's rhetoric on immigrants and against the BBC sounds suspiciously like the BNP.
Showing posts with label pc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pc. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Boy accused of racism wasn't actually accused of racism shock
Here's another 'political correctness gone mad' story that the Mail just loves. And loves to present in a way that doesn't appear to reflect the situation at all.
So the headline screams:
Boy, 9, told to apologise for 'racist' taunt to Polish classmate while playing soldiers in lesson
And the first line repeats:
Got it? Good.
Because it's not until the very last line of the story that the headteacher of the school is quoted saying:
Hmm.
Here's what the Mail says happened:
Hard to find a racist element in that, although a school might be worried about kids pretending to shoot each other. Then there's a classic quote from the boy's mum, who says:
Yeh, wouldn't want it being turned into a big issue, would you? Taking the story to the press is the perfect way to quieten the situation down and turn attention away from your son.
There are other differences in the two accounts. The Mum claims:
whereas the Head says:
Then the Mum claims the boy was:
The Head says:
Amazing that once again the Mail seems to know exactly who is right.
The vast majority of the comments on the story have taken the predictable 'can't be racist in your own country any more' type line, having clearly taken the view that the school is lying. Not surprising when the Mail has fed them the story that way, and most probably haven't read to the end before bashing out their knee-jerk reactions.
Sigh.
So the headline screams:
Boy, 9, told to apologise for 'racist' taunt to Polish classmate while playing soldiers in lesson
And the first line repeats:
A nine-year-old schoolboy was branded racist by teachers after playing a game of soldiers with a Polish friend, his parents have claimed.
Got it? Good.
Because it's not until the very last line of the story that the headteacher of the school is quoted saying:
'...at no point was the pupil accused of being racist.'
Hmm.
Here's what the Mail says happened:
Steven Cheek was reprimanded for pointing a finger at the Eastern European classmate and said: 'We've got to shoot the German army'.
Hard to find a racist element in that, although a school might be worried about kids pretending to shoot each other. Then there's a classic quote from the boy's mum, who says:
'I think the school has over-reacted and been very heavy-handed. They could have quietly told him off instead of turning it into a big issue.'
Yeh, wouldn't want it being turned into a big issue, would you? Taking the story to the press is the perfect way to quieten the situation down and turn attention away from your son.
There are other differences in the two accounts. The Mum claims:
he loved learning about the war in class
whereas the Head says:
The class had not been learning about the war.
Then the Mum claims the boy was:
forced him to stand in front of the class and make a humiliating apology.
The Head says:
The incident in question involved a short conversation with a pupil to explain the inappropriateness of his comments and then a meeting with the parent to explain the context.
Amazing that once again the Mail seems to know exactly who is right.
The vast majority of the comments on the story have taken the predictable 'can't be racist in your own country any more' type line, having clearly taken the view that the school is lying. Not surprising when the Mail has fed them the story that way, and most probably haven't read to the end before bashing out their knee-jerk reactions.
Sigh.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Can Littlejohn stop making it up?
Two days ago, 'Christians under attack' round-up showed how the Mail had picked up a couple of stories that made it look as if Christianity was being threatened again.
In an entirely predictable move, Littlejohn has linked the two stories in his column today. Needless to say, he adds absolutely nothing to either, but just comments on the Mail articles. Again.
On the hotel couple who offended a Muslim guest, Littlejohn has also decided, like the Mail on Sunday, that what these two said was not a problem. He admits:
But he is sure it was all OK anyway. And then he adds:
Which is weird, because back when a small group of attention-seeking Muslim protestors were haranguing returning soldiers in Luton, he didn't think they were 'entitled to their opinion'. Oh no. He was livid that:
So in his rant claiming it is one rule for Christians and one rule for everyone else, he proves the same. Just not in the way he thinks.
He moves onto to the Exeter nurse case and begins with a completely - and deliberately - false comparison:
As mentioned last time, the nurse was asked to remove her necklace because all necklaces are banned. The fact that hers has a crucifix on it is neither here nor there and the hospital have made it clear she can still wear her crucifix in other ways. So she hasn't, as Littlejohn knowingly, wrongly claims been 'ordered to remove her crucifix'. That is a blatant lie and not 'reporting the facts'. So once again, we find Littlejohn can make it up.
Littlejohn also has an entirely expected comment on the Calais 'Jungle' and the includes another throwaway exaggeration/lie:
Of course, beginning the sentence 'there may' equally means 'there may not'. It's a get-out. But the two million figure seems hugely inflated.
Back in March the Mail itself reported on an LSE report saying there were likely:
These are figures that have also been used by the IPPR and by the Mail's old friends at Migrationwatch. So where does two million come from when the latest figures suggest that even the highest estimate is less than one million?
Surely he hasn't just plucked his 'fact' out of the air? Because we know he 'merely sticks to the facts'.
So he's done elf'n'safety, political correctness, evil intolerant Muslims, immigration and asylum - what's left? An attack on a council for what he deems a worthless job? Oh yes.
This time it's Lancashire County Council who are advertising for a 'Myth busting project worker'. Littlejohn calls it 'Manager', not 'worker' so he can't even cut-and-paste that correctly. He writes:
Well what a surprise. This is a job to:
That would be the very same 'negative myths and perceptions' that Littlejohn spews out twice a week. No wonder he thinks the post is a:
In fact, refugee groups and many councils have similar guidelines (see Mobiles, Money & Mayhem: The Facts and Fibs About Asylum or countless others). He asks:
This is a game he played before when he said Gypsy and Traveller groups don't need media training and then called them all dirty, gun-toting criminals.
But instead of asking 'However did they manage without one?', he should ask 'how has the situation got so bad that they feel one is now necessary?' But that would take some real thought and maybe even an admission his columns, his paper are part of the problem.
Don't expect that any time soon.
In an entirely predictable move, Littlejohn has linked the two stories in his column today. Needless to say, he adds absolutely nothing to either, but just comments on the Mail articles. Again.
On the hotel couple who offended a Muslim guest, Littlejohn has also decided, like the Mail on Sunday, that what these two said was not a problem. He admits:
We weren't party to the conversation, so we can't be sure what was said.
But he is sure it was all OK anyway. And then he adds:
But they're entitled to their opinion. Arresting them for 'hate crime' is a monstrous abuse of police powers.
Which is weird, because back when a small group of attention-seeking Muslim protestors were haranguing returning soldiers in Luton, he didn't think they were 'entitled to their opinion'. Oh no. He was livid that:
None of the young Muslim men inciting hatred were arrested.
So in his rant claiming it is one rule for Christians and one rule for everyone else, he proves the same. Just not in the way he thinks.
He moves onto to the Exeter nurse case and begins with a completely - and deliberately - false comparison:
Elsewhere, a nurse from Exeter has been ordered to remove her crucifix - on the weasel excuse of elf'n'safety - even though Muslim staff are allowed to wear headscarves.
As mentioned last time, the nurse was asked to remove her necklace because all necklaces are banned. The fact that hers has a crucifix on it is neither here nor there and the hospital have made it clear she can still wear her crucifix in other ways. So she hasn't, as Littlejohn knowingly, wrongly claims been 'ordered to remove her crucifix'. That is a blatant lie and not 'reporting the facts'. So once again, we find Littlejohn can make it up.
Littlejohn also has an entirely expected comment on the Calais 'Jungle' and the includes another throwaway exaggeration/lie:
There may already be as many as two million foreign nationals living here illegally. No one seems sure.
Of course, beginning the sentence 'there may' equally means 'there may not'. It's a get-out. But the two million figure seems hugely inflated.
Back in March the Mail itself reported on an LSE report saying there were likely:
between 524,000 and 947,000, with a 'central estimate' of 725,000.
These are figures that have also been used by the IPPR and by the Mail's old friends at Migrationwatch. So where does two million come from when the latest figures suggest that even the highest estimate is less than one million?
Surely he hasn't just plucked his 'fact' out of the air? Because we know he 'merely sticks to the facts'.
So he's done elf'n'safety, political correctness, evil intolerant Muslims, immigration and asylum - what's left? An attack on a council for what he deems a worthless job? Oh yes.
This time it's Lancashire County Council who are advertising for a 'Myth busting project worker'. Littlejohn calls it 'Manager', not 'worker' so he can't even cut-and-paste that correctly. He writes:
The successful applicant will be responsible for 'researching Lancashire communities' attitudes and responses to migrants and formulate and deliver a positive campaign to dispel negative myths and perceptions...'
After that, I lost the will to live.
Well what a surprise. This is a job to:
deliver a positive campaign to dispel negative myths and perceptions
That would be the very same 'negative myths and perceptions' that Littlejohn spews out twice a week. No wonder he thinks the post is a:
pointless non-job
In fact, refugee groups and many councils have similar guidelines (see Mobiles, Money & Mayhem: The Facts and Fibs About Asylum or countless others). He asks:
However did they manage without one?
This is a game he played before when he said Gypsy and Traveller groups don't need media training and then called them all dirty, gun-toting criminals.
But instead of asking 'However did they manage without one?', he should ask 'how has the situation got so bad that they feel one is now necessary?' But that would take some real thought and maybe even an admission his columns, his paper are part of the problem.
Don't expect that any time soon.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
'Christians under attack' round-up
Two stories in the Mail on Sunday, one which first appeared in the Telegraph, implying that Christians are under siege.
The first is a slightly curious report about Aintree hotel couple Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang. The Mail claims they have been hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest.
Note the use of the emotive 'hauled' to suggest something heavy handed and unnecessary. The first line also makes it clear whose side the Mail is on:
The view of the Muslim guest is not given, and the Mail admits the facts are 'disputed'.
It goes further in the editorial, saying:
But if it is so hard to comment and the facts are disputed, how does the Mail feel able to write a very a slanted article and biased editorial on the case?
The other story is - and stop me if you have heard it before - a Christian woman banned from wearing a necklace by workplace rules. The Mail (and indeed the Telegraph, twice, and the Times) have sniffed a Christian-being-persecuted-for-health-and-safety-and-political-correctness reasons and gone to town.
But here's how the Mail headline reads:
If it read 'Nurse removed from frontline duty for wearing necklace' would anyone be interested? No. But that is the story.
Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital have said all necklaces are banned:
So nurse Shirley Chaplin can still wear her cross if she wants. They make that quite clear. There is no attempt to stop her wearing a symbol of her faith. Just not on a necklace.
But she throws out a few Mail-arousing quotes about 'discriminating against Christians' and a 'blatant piece of political correctness' and they rise to the bait exactly as expected.
But the Hospital have their rules, asked her to remove the necklace and have taken off frontline duty until she complies. In other circumstances you could see the Mail saying 'why can't she just abide by the rules?'
But because she's a Christian (middle aged, white, two children, married, from Devon) they see it as a sign of something bigger.
Back in the Telegraph, 'journalist and social commentator' Ed West misinterprets the story for his own agenda. He doesn't see a Muslim plot but an atheist one. But he engages in a very convenient bit of misunderstanding.
The Trust says about religious symbols:
West misleadingly retorts:
Err, well who said it wasn't? Certainly not the Hospital Trust. The point they made was not whether a crucifix is a 'symbol' of faith but whether wearing one is a 'requirement of faith'. And they say it isn't.
Incidentally, West is features editor of the Catholic Herald and likes the new book by Christopher Caldwell (discussed here). He refers to Caldwell as:
instead of calling him:
The Weekly Standard being a right-wing rag edited and founded by Sarah Palin's biggest supporter, Bill Kristol.
In the wake of Patrick Swayze's death, West also wrote about Red Dawn as
Rather than a ludicrous right-wing wank-fant. And he can't have seen many action movies either.
The first is a slightly curious report about Aintree hotel couple Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang. The Mail claims they have been hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest.
Note the use of the emotive 'hauled' to suggest something heavy handed and unnecessary. The first line also makes it clear whose side the Mail is on:
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
The view of the Muslim guest is not given, and the Mail admits the facts are 'disputed'.
It goes further in the editorial, saying:
It is hard to comment on the detail of the case...since both prosecution and defence seem reluctant to speak about it.
But if it is so hard to comment and the facts are disputed, how does the Mail feel able to write a very a slanted article and biased editorial on the case?
The other story is - and stop me if you have heard it before - a Christian woman banned from wearing a necklace by workplace rules. The Mail (and indeed the Telegraph, twice, and the Times) have sniffed a Christian-being-persecuted-for-health-and-safety-and-political-correctness reasons and gone to town.
But here's how the Mail headline reads:
Christian nurse removed from frontline duty for wearing cross necklace
If it read 'Nurse removed from frontline duty for wearing necklace' would anyone be interested? No. But that is the story.
Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital have said all necklaces are banned:
our uniform and dress code policy does not allow our staff to wear necklaces, with or without anything attached to it...If a member of staff asked if they could wear a crucifix pinned on their uniform lapel this would not comply with the same policy for the same reasons but it would be acceptable to wear it if pinned inside their uniform lapel or pocket.
So nurse Shirley Chaplin can still wear her cross if she wants. They make that quite clear. There is no attempt to stop her wearing a symbol of her faith. Just not on a necklace.
But she throws out a few Mail-arousing quotes about 'discriminating against Christians' and a 'blatant piece of political correctness' and they rise to the bait exactly as expected.
But the Hospital have their rules, asked her to remove the necklace and have taken off frontline duty until she complies. In other circumstances you could see the Mail saying 'why can't she just abide by the rules?'
But because she's a Christian (middle aged, white, two children, married, from Devon) they see it as a sign of something bigger.
Back in the Telegraph, 'journalist and social commentator' Ed West misinterprets the story for his own agenda. He doesn't see a Muslim plot but an atheist one. But he engages in a very convenient bit of misunderstanding.
The Trust says about religious symbols:
Exceptions are made for requirements of faith, but a crucifix is not considered to fall under this category, they added.
West misleadingly retorts:
How can a crucifix, the most recognisable religious symbol and, dare I say it, brand logo of all time, not be recognised as a religious symbol?
Err, well who said it wasn't? Certainly not the Hospital Trust. The point they made was not whether a crucifix is a 'symbol' of faith but whether wearing one is a 'requirement of faith'. And they say it isn't.
Incidentally, West is features editor of the Catholic Herald and likes the new book by Christopher Caldwell (discussed here). He refers to Caldwell as:
a mild-mannered Financial Times journalist
instead of calling him:
a journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard being a right-wing rag edited and founded by Sarah Palin's biggest supporter, Bill Kristol.
In the wake of Patrick Swayze's death, West also wrote about Red Dawn as
one of the best action movies of all time.
Rather than a ludicrous right-wing wank-fant. And he can't have seen many action movies either.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Dick Littlejohn
The Mail have decided that Richard Littlejohn's columns are now so important and valuable, they have stopped running them in full on the website so you just have to buy the paper to read the rubbish in full.
That seems to be quite positive news - his ignorant, repetitive, feeble rantings are now going to be seen by far fewer people. Good job Daily Mail!
After the blog post here about his inability to spot some 'babies' were actually puppies, he issued a 'correction' on 11 September. But only in the print version, and under the headline 'How the Times readers were sold a pup', thus implying it's the Times' fault he got it wrong. Nothing to do with the fact he's an idiot who can't do basic journalistic research.
(If anyone has the full text, please do send it over).
His 'PC gone mad' fiction of the week was about the renaming of Spotted Dick, which has been covered by Jonathan and Uponnothing. Littlejohn says:
Because, in cockney rhyming slang, it means turd.
Who could have possibly imagined that 'Richard' means 'shit'?
Anyway, was it another ghastly plot by politically correct council chiefs? Well, umm, no. A spokesman said:
So canteen staff changed the name because they were sick of childish jokes, rather than any sinister plot to destroy Britain's heritage etc. And how does Littlejohn continue his article? With lots more childish jokes:
Laugh? I nearly did.
The main focus of his column is the Michael Shields case, which includes this gem:
The name and constituency are right. But she's a Labour MP, not a Lib Dem. Oopsy. Again.
So that's mixing up Devon and Cornwall, thinking dogs are humans, and confusing Labour with the Lib Dems. All in the space of a couple of weeks.
He really is trying his best to make it up.
That seems to be quite positive news - his ignorant, repetitive, feeble rantings are now going to be seen by far fewer people. Good job Daily Mail!
After the blog post here about his inability to spot some 'babies' were actually puppies, he issued a 'correction' on 11 September. But only in the print version, and under the headline 'How the Times readers were sold a pup', thus implying it's the Times' fault he got it wrong. Nothing to do with the fact he's an idiot who can't do basic journalistic research.
(If anyone has the full text, please do send it over).
His 'PC gone mad' fiction of the week was about the renaming of Spotted Dick, which has been covered by Jonathan and Uponnothing. Littlejohn says:
killjoy canteen chiefs at Flintshire council have banned Spotted Dick.
These Welsh puritans have ordered the name of the popular pudding changed to Spotted Richard. If they knew anything about cockney rhyming slang, they'd have given that a miss, too.
Because, in cockney rhyming slang, it means turd.
Who could have possibly imagined that 'Richard' means 'shit'?
Anyway, was it another ghastly plot by politically correct council chiefs? Well, umm, no. A spokesman said:
"The correct title for this dish is 'Spotted Dick.' However because of several immature comments from a few customers, catering staff renamed the dish 'Spotted Richard' or 'Sultana Sponge'.
"This was not a policy decision, canteen staff simply acted as they thought best to put an end to unwelcome and childish comments, albeit from a very small number of customers."
So canteen staff changed the name because they were sick of childish jokes, rather than any sinister plot to destroy Britain's heritage etc. And how does Littlejohn continue his article? With lots more childish jokes:
Where does this leave cock-a-leekie, let alone coq au vin?
And woe betide anyone who asks for a knob of butter or meat and two veg.
Laugh? I nearly did.
The main focus of his column is the Michael Shields case, which includes this gem:
Louise Ellman, LibDem MP for Liverpool Riverside
The name and constituency are right. But she's a Labour MP, not a Lib Dem. Oopsy. Again.
So that's mixing up Devon and Cornwall, thinking dogs are humans, and confusing Labour with the Lib Dems. All in the space of a couple of weeks.
He really is trying his best to make it up.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
'Breath of fresh air' agrees with the Taliban
The Daily Quail has written a new post about Doncaster Mayor Peter Davies, who is back in the Mail for saying:
The Mail seems to have picked this up from Davies' remarks in an interview with the Yorkshire Post, which was reporting on the outrage caused by this statement.
But why has it taken the Mail over a week to report on these comments when they were included - although only vaguely - in Robert Hardman's profile of the Mayor last Saturday. In the Mail. Hardman wrote that Davies:
Surely the Mail didn't gloss over this so it could focus on the hero worship?
'We could all learn something about family values from the Taliban'
The Mail seems to have picked this up from Davies' remarks in an interview with the Yorkshire Post, which was reporting on the outrage caused by this statement.
But why has it taken the Mail over a week to report on these comments when they were included - although only vaguely - in Robert Hardman's profile of the Mayor last Saturday. In the Mail. Hardman wrote that Davies:
believes the Taliban could teach us a thing or two about family values.
Surely the Mail didn't gloss over this so it could focus on the hero worship?
Saturday, 29 August 2009
Listen to the Mail's new favourite politician
Today's Mail contains a lengthy interview-cum-worship-at-the-feet-of-article about the new English Democrat Party Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies. Being described as 'un-PC' pushes all the right buttons for the Mail - and he is father to idiot Tory MP and PC-gone-mad obsessive Philip Davies.
However, it is worth reading this hilarious transcipt from an interview he did on BBC Radio Sheffield the day after his election, or listening here (although it cuts off before the end).
And this is the man the Mail and its readers (every one of the 174 comments is currently rated positive, which suggests they all back him) wish to idolise.
At the end, after Davies has huffed off, interviewer Toby Foster says that will be one of the easiest interviews he will get.
Wrong.
However, it is worth reading this hilarious transcipt from an interview he did on BBC Radio Sheffield the day after his election, or listening here (although it cuts off before the end).
And this is the man the Mail and its readers (every one of the 174 comments is currently rated positive, which suggests they all back him) wish to idolise.
At the end, after Davies has huffed off, interviewer Toby Foster says that will be one of the easiest interviews he will get.
Wrong.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Recommended
Another plug for Jamie Sport who has two very funny posts over at the Daily Quail - one about shagging fruit and one about comments on a Littlejohn column.
'I didn't quite understand the sheep story but I'm sure it was very clever' is a brilliant line.
'I didn't quite understand the sheep story but I'm sure it was very clever' is a brilliant line.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
PC gone mad story debunked
Jamie Sport has written an excellent column over at Mailwatch debunking the latest 'political correctness gone mad' story.
The Mail, Star and Telegraph reported that Citizen's Advice had banned the word 'blacklisting' and replaced it with 'blocklisting', to avoid giving offensive to black people.
Turns out, blacklisting hasn't been banned, blocklisting is an IT term mean something different and the whole story is an invention.
What a surprise.
But the question is - if Jamie could get the truth from Citizen's Advice, why were these papers unable, or (more likely) unwilling?
As Jamie says, it's not political correctness gone mad, it's journalism gone rubbish.
The Mail, Star and Telegraph reported that Citizen's Advice had banned the word 'blacklisting' and replaced it with 'blocklisting', to avoid giving offensive to black people.
Turns out, blacklisting hasn't been banned, blocklisting is an IT term mean something different and the whole story is an invention.
What a surprise.
But the question is - if Jamie could get the truth from Citizen's Advice, why were these papers unable, or (more likely) unwilling?
As Jamie says, it's not political correctness gone mad, it's journalism gone rubbish.
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Recommended - how dare we try to teach healthy relationships in schools
Two excellent posts from the Daily Quail - one the Mail's latest bizarre BBC and ageism and Strictly Come Dancing nonsense, and on today's awful Mail front page complaining about teaching children about wife-beating.
Here's how James Slack's story begins:
Controversial? How can that be in any way controversial?
Slack and the Mail - sometimes it's just beyond parody.
Here's how James Slack's story begins:
Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.
The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls.
Controversial? How can that be in any way controversial?
Slack and the Mail - sometimes it's just beyond parody.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Political correctness gone mad story round-up
No Sleep 'Til Brooklands has recently covered two 'PC gone mad' stories - one about playground games, and one about police wearing Union Jack badges.
And there has been another today, with the widely reported news that the Union Flag barred from the ID card: Ministers don't want to offend Irish nationalists or, as the Sun puts it, Union Jackass. The Sun widen the field by suggesting the move is to
Which means foreigners and Muslims.
The news has also popped up in the Telegraph and even the Guardian.
Unsurprisingly, it's not quite accurate.
Look at how the Mail reported an earlier launch of the ID card design (pictured left) - British identity cards will be covered in EU symbols - September 2008. That story focussed on anti-Europe hysteria - it's got two small EU images, so it's hardly 'covered'.
But curiously, given today's story, it doesn't mention the Union Jack at all.
So why is its absence a problem now? Especially as those EU symbols have now been removed.
Moreover, the new design includes four new images - that of a rose, daffodil, thistle and shamrock - to represent each of the four countries of the UK, along with the royal coat of arms.
This is political correctness gone mad. Apparently.
And there has been another today, with the widely reported news that the Union Flag barred from the ID card: Ministers don't want to offend Irish nationalists or, as the Sun puts it, Union Jackass. The Sun widen the field by suggesting the move is to
avoid upsetting groups who may not identify with the UK symbol
Which means foreigners and Muslims.
The news has also popped up in the Telegraph and even the Guardian.
Unsurprisingly, it's not quite accurate.Look at how the Mail reported an earlier launch of the ID card design (pictured left) - British identity cards will be covered in EU symbols - September 2008. That story focussed on anti-Europe hysteria - it's got two small EU images, so it's hardly 'covered'.
But curiously, given today's story, it doesn't mention the Union Jack at all.
So why is its absence a problem now? Especially as those EU symbols have now been removed.
Moreover, the new design includes four new images - that of a rose, daffodil, thistle and shamrock - to represent each of the four countries of the UK, along with the royal coat of arms.
This is political correctness gone mad. Apparently.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Shameless back-slap...and some thoughts
This very blog was mentioned in an article by Gaby Hinsliff, the political editor of the Observer, as an example of a 'new breed of blog' attacking the tabloids. She says: 'It's rough and ready, but it's an interesting new way of holding newspapers to account'.
Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?
It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.
The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.
But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?
The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?
Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.
Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.
So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.
But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.
The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.
There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.
This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.
This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.
Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.
In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.
Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.
A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?
My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.
Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?
It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.
The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.
But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?
The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?
Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.
Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.
So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.
But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.
The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.
There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.
This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.
This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.
Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.
In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.
Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.
A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?
My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Recommended reading
5CC finds the latest James Slack classic isn't all it's cracked up to be (surprise) - Britain isn't more violent than US, South Africa or anywhere else in Europe.
Over at Angry Mob, Lois Lane has written about the Mail's article on Body Dysmorphic Disorder - ironic given the Mail's obsession with finding fault with the look - and especially weight - of celebrities (such as Leona Lewis and Jennifer Love Hewitt). And their bizarre fascination with knees.
Meanwhile Uponnothing posts on the Mail's latest Facebook scare - it nearly destroyed a marriage!
At Enemies of Reason, Anton comments on the differences with 'final photos' of Diana and Michael Jackson, courtesy of Richard Desmond; and on the latest PC ban on crucifix nonsense.
Lady Scamp finds the Mail is now making stories out of the comments left on their other stories.
Over at Angry Mob, Lois Lane has written about the Mail's article on Body Dysmorphic Disorder - ironic given the Mail's obsession with finding fault with the look - and especially weight - of celebrities (such as Leona Lewis and Jennifer Love Hewitt). And their bizarre fascination with knees.
Meanwhile Uponnothing posts on the Mail's latest Facebook scare - it nearly destroyed a marriage!
At Enemies of Reason, Anton comments on the differences with 'final photos' of Diana and Michael Jackson, courtesy of Richard Desmond; and on the latest PC ban on crucifix nonsense.
Lady Scamp finds the Mail is now making stories out of the comments left on their other stories.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Littlejohn in correction shock!
Further down from his Jackson rant, Littlejohn's column contains a follow-up piece on a Scarborough pleasure boat called the Coronia. In his column last Friday, Littlejohn criticised EU 'jobsworths' for their 'bloody-mindedness' which had stopped the boat travelling to Whitby from Scarborough under 'new rules'.
The fact that the Coronia had helped in the evacuation of Dunkirk only added to his EU 'elf'n'safety'-gone-mad frenzy. His 30 June column included a clarification, which was made to sound like it wasn't one really:
Except he didn't. The decision to halt the Coronia's trips was made nearly two years ago.
In the original article, he wrote:
'In recent years, it has been operating' (no, it hasn't).
'But now' (two years ago).
'EU safety officials' (the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency).
'Limited to 30 nautical miles a day' (limited to 15 miles from the nearest port, which the ship's captain was told in 2008).
How did Littlejohn get the facts so completely wrong?
And why is he mentioning it at all, given it is such old news? Could it be he has seen remarks by a Government minister offering to help the Coronia with a compromise, for which he will then take the credit?
The fact that the Coronia had helped in the evacuation of Dunkirk only added to his EU 'elf'n'safety'-gone-mad frenzy. His 30 June column included a clarification, which was made to sound like it wasn't one really:
On Friday, I brought you news of the pleasure boat Coronia, one of the small ships which evacuated the beaches at Dunkirk, which has been banned from making the 34-mile round trip from Scarborough to Whitby.Quite why he thinks rules to try and make people safe at sea are somehow problematic is puzzling, but how he must have hated to let the EU off the hook. Still, note the first line: 'I brought you news'. All hail Littlejohn for exposing this latest example of petty PC bureaucracy!
Captain Tom Machin was told that EU maritime safety rules limited him to 30 miles a day, which meant he could no longer dock at Whitby. It turns out that the EU limit is 15 miles from the nearest port. But British officials have interpreted that as 15 miles from the ship's home port, in this case Scarborough.
So what we have is, yet again, another case of home-grown jobsworths gold-plating European rules and making them ten times worse.
Except he didn't. The decision to halt the Coronia's trips was made nearly two years ago.
In the original article, he wrote:
In recent years, it has been operating a daily 34-mile round trip service between the Yorkshire resorts of Scarborough and Whitby.Four errors in two sentences is some achievement:
But now the boat's captain, Tom Machin, has been told by EU safety officials that under new rules he is limited to 30 nautical miles a day.
'In recent years, it has been operating' (no, it hasn't).
'But now' (two years ago).
'EU safety officials' (the British Maritime and Coastguard Agency).
'Limited to 30 nautical miles a day' (limited to 15 miles from the nearest port, which the ship's captain was told in 2008).
How did Littlejohn get the facts so completely wrong?
And why is he mentioning it at all, given it is such old news? Could it be he has seen remarks by a Government minister offering to help the Coronia with a compromise, for which he will then take the credit?
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Christian Mail v Islam round-up
A Catholic woman has resigned from her job at Gloucester Royal Hospital after being told she can not wear her crucifix necklace because of a strict uniform policy banning all necklaces.
The Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust said:
One sounds reasonable and eminently sensible. The other sounds like hysteria-stoking, look-what's-happening-to 'us' non-Muslims nonsense, the latest in a long-line of such stories.
And it comes just a day after the Mail reported - with no small relish - remarks by Don Maclean that the BBC hearts Islam and hates Christianity. This was great for the paper, as it allowed it to both bash the BBC and push its 'Christians under attack from Muslims' agenda.
Maclean claimed that the BBC only covered Christian issues when it was about gay clergy and paedophile priests. When an inquiry finds 'endemic' child abuse at Catholic institutions or there's the possibility of a split in the Church of Scotland over the appointment of a gay clergyman, apparently, it's not to be mentioned.
He echoes Mail columnist Stephen Glover in making an attack on Aaqil Ahmed, the newly appointed head of religious programming. But like him, his criticism makes no sense, bemoaning the state of religious programming on the BBC, yet saying Ahmed's predecessor, Michael Wakelin, was a 'very devout Christian' and the 'man for the job'.
How can he be the 'man for the job' if, as Maclean claims, religious programmes have been so rubbish and the BBC has been 'keen on programmes that attack the Christian church...They seem to take the negative angle every time'. This is a total contradiction, and the same one that Glover seemed to have no problem spewing out.
Maclean also states the BBC is 'keen on Islam...Programmes on Islam are always supportive', without giving a single example of this - as he doesn't with all these programmes 'attacking' Christianity. As Richard Bartholomew states, there is still plenty of Christian programmes on the BBC. And Maclean's statement that they 'wanted rid of Wakelin' is rather disproved given Wakelin led the Daily Service this morning (and anyone who has had their TMS commentary interrupted by the Daily Service will know all too well there is a 15 minute Christian worship every single morning).
The Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust said:
"We were disappointed that Helen took this decision and had offered to meet her again to discuss her concerns. The Trust does have a uniform policy which prohibits the wearing of necklaces and chains for the safety of both patients and staff. Similar policies are in place in hospitals across the country and are vital in the fight against infections.The Mail says: Devout Catholic nurse resigns over hospital crucifix ban.
“We would like to make it clear that Helen had not been the subject of disciplinary action. As a Trust we are supportive of our employees’ religious beliefs and indeed the vast majority of staff feel able to work within the policies of the organisation without compromising these important beliefs".
One sounds reasonable and eminently sensible. The other sounds like hysteria-stoking, look-what's-happening-to 'us' non-Muslims nonsense, the latest in a long-line of such stories.
And it comes just a day after the Mail reported - with no small relish - remarks by Don Maclean that the BBC hearts Islam and hates Christianity. This was great for the paper, as it allowed it to both bash the BBC and push its 'Christians under attack from Muslims' agenda.
Maclean claimed that the BBC only covered Christian issues when it was about gay clergy and paedophile priests. When an inquiry finds 'endemic' child abuse at Catholic institutions or there's the possibility of a split in the Church of Scotland over the appointment of a gay clergyman, apparently, it's not to be mentioned.
He echoes Mail columnist Stephen Glover in making an attack on Aaqil Ahmed, the newly appointed head of religious programming. But like him, his criticism makes no sense, bemoaning the state of religious programming on the BBC, yet saying Ahmed's predecessor, Michael Wakelin, was a 'very devout Christian' and the 'man for the job'.
How can he be the 'man for the job' if, as Maclean claims, religious programmes have been so rubbish and the BBC has been 'keen on programmes that attack the Christian church...They seem to take the negative angle every time'. This is a total contradiction, and the same one that Glover seemed to have no problem spewing out.
Maclean also states the BBC is 'keen on Islam...Programmes on Islam are always supportive', without giving a single example of this - as he doesn't with all these programmes 'attacking' Christianity. As Richard Bartholomew states, there is still plenty of Christian programmes on the BBC. And Maclean's statement that they 'wanted rid of Wakelin' is rather disproved given Wakelin led the Daily Service this morning (and anyone who has had their TMS commentary interrupted by the Daily Service will know all too well there is a 15 minute Christian worship every single morning).
Friday, 3 April 2009
Mail hypocrisy on religious symbols
So a school bans someone from wearing a symbol of their religion for health and safety reasons and it is brilliant.
Another school bans someone from wearing a symbol of their religion for health and safety reasons and it is an outrage.
Can you guess where this is going?
Well the Daily Mail website is at time of writing leading with a story of a Muslim woman who was banned from parents' evening at her son's school because she was wearing a veil. The story says:
The 34 year old was refused entry on health, safety and security grounds with the headteacher stating visitors' faces should be visible at all times.
The headteacher is quoted saying: 'the difficulty would be if a number of ladies wearing veils were free to wander the corridors or rooms', thus re-inforcing the views of Mail readers that all Muslims are up to no good.
And the comments are exactly as you expect, repeatedly saying 'good' and 'about time' and 'when in Rome...'
Now step back a couple of years. 12 January 2007. And a Daily Mail story that begins:
A Catholic schoolgirl was asked not to wear a crucifix on a chain because it breached health and safety rules, her father said today....Her father, Danny Devine, 30, of Canterbury Street, Gillingham, told the Medway Messenger: "It's just political correctness gone absolutely mad. It's a harmless crucifix and she wears it as a symbol of her religion.
The comments are indignant stating: 'Claiming the issue is about Health and Safety just makes the School look silly' and 'Another load of PC gone mad'.
Of course there have been plenty of other stories like this - such as this 12 year old banned from wearing a chastity ring, which isn't even a proper religious symbol, just a faddish fashion item made popular for schoolgirls by the Jonas Brothers. Or this story which includes in the headline the direct comparison between a chastity ring and 'Muslim and Sikh symbols' despite the clear difference between them.
But the Mail loves running stories like this because, for their twisted agenda, it is further 'evidence' that Christianity is under attack.
Another school bans someone from wearing a symbol of their religion for health and safety reasons and it is an outrage.
Can you guess where this is going?
Well the Daily Mail website is at time of writing leading with a story of a Muslim woman who was banned from parents' evening at her son's school because she was wearing a veil. The story says:
The 34 year old was refused entry on health, safety and security grounds with the headteacher stating visitors' faces should be visible at all times.
The headteacher is quoted saying: 'the difficulty would be if a number of ladies wearing veils were free to wander the corridors or rooms', thus re-inforcing the views of Mail readers that all Muslims are up to no good.
And the comments are exactly as you expect, repeatedly saying 'good' and 'about time' and 'when in Rome...'
Now step back a couple of years. 12 January 2007. And a Daily Mail story that begins:
A Catholic schoolgirl was asked not to wear a crucifix on a chain because it breached health and safety rules, her father said today....Her father, Danny Devine, 30, of Canterbury Street, Gillingham, told the Medway Messenger: "It's just political correctness gone absolutely mad. It's a harmless crucifix and she wears it as a symbol of her religion.
The comments are indignant stating: 'Claiming the issue is about Health and Safety just makes the School look silly' and 'Another load of PC gone mad'.
Of course there have been plenty of other stories like this - such as this 12 year old banned from wearing a chastity ring, which isn't even a proper religious symbol, just a faddish fashion item made popular for schoolgirls by the Jonas Brothers. Or this story which includes in the headline the direct comparison between a chastity ring and 'Muslim and Sikh symbols' despite the clear difference between them.
But the Mail loves running stories like this because, for their twisted agenda, it is further 'evidence' that Christianity is under attack.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Philip Davies gone mad
Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, is one of those awful rent-a-quote people that the tabloids love to call on for some 'outrage' quote on any political correctness story going.On 25 Feb 09 he appeared on Radio 5 Live to discuss Hazel Blears' latest about political correctness. His main point was that you can't call people Chairmen any more, which seemed to prove the point that these stories are exaggerated nonsense.
But he very clearly said that one of the problems with all this political correctness is that people can't make jokes these days for fear of offending someone.
Would this be the same Philip Davies who was quote everywhere during the 'Sachsgate' affair, saying things such as: ‘I know Jonathan Ross has been handsomely rewarded by the BBC for being rude, inappropriate and as vile as possible, but I would hope that even the BBC would accept he’s overstepped the mark this time. In any other walk of life, anyone who did this type of thing would face serious disciplinary proceedings. I hope the BBC will consider what consequences there may be if they don’t take him to task for this.’ The same Philip Davies who said Ross should have been sacked for making this, er, offensive prank call.
Of course, the best Philip Davies moment came during the saga of The Sun's 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' story of 7 October 2006. You can find the story here (although this site is not recommended reading!) - The Sun withdrew the full story after complaints. The story began:
MUSLIM yobs who wrecked a house to stop four brave soldiers moving in after returning from Afghanistan sparked outrage last night. The house in a village near riot-torn Windsor had BRICKS thrown through windows and was DAUBED with messages of hate.
Davies was quoted as saying: 'This is outrageous. If there’s anybody who should fuck off it’s the Muslims who are doing this kind of thing. Police should pull out the stops to track down these vile thugs.'
The Sun eventually withdrew the story completely, 3 months later: ('we have been asked to point out no threatening calls were logged at Combermere Barracks from Muslims and police have been unable to establish if any faith or religious group was responsible for the incident').
His response to the truth was pathetic.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
What Do We Do With Made Up Stories?
Another excellent piece at 5CC, highlighting the PC-gone-mad story about the words to What Shall We Do With The Drunken Sailor?
This was reported by all the usual suspects, but also reached The Guardian.
Not the first time recently The Guardian, which really should know better, has swallowed some of this political correctness gone mad nonsense ("Christmas is axed in Oxford").
This was reported by all the usual suspects, but also reached The Guardian.
Not the first time recently The Guardian, which really should know better, has swallowed some of this political correctness gone mad nonsense ("Christmas is axed in Oxford").
Tyranny from Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens was on a red-faced rant against homosexuals in the Mail on Sunday (31 Jan '09)
We show tolerance to ‘gays’ and get tyranny in return
Another nasty piece of bash-the-minorities, boo to the 'thought police', PC gone mad b/s that seems to fill the Mail these days.
We show tolerance to ‘gays’ and get tyranny in return
Another nasty piece of bash-the-minorities, boo to the 'thought police', PC gone mad b/s that seems to fill the Mail these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
