Pound still accepted on Eurostar

The front page of today's Daily Express says the 'pound is banned':

The sub-heading clarifies this slightly, pointing out that this is not a general ban but only 'barmy Eurostar bosses' who have, apparently, 'banned' sterling as it is 'not good enough'.

The Express 'exclusive' by Alison Little says:

Outrage erupted yesterday after Eurostar stopped passengers from using British cash to buy snacks on board its trains.

The crazy ban was part of a controversial plan to ditch the pound on the company’s cross-Channel services and force passengers to pay in euros instead.

There then follows predictable 'fury' quotes from usual suspects Gerard Batten and Philip Davies.

Did this outrage really 'erupt yesterday'? According to the story, the Express was contacted by a reader who discovered last Sunday that Eurostar were doing a seven-day trial during which they were not accepting cash payments in sterling in their buffet bar (debit card payments were still accepted). One other passenger left a critical message on the Eurostar's Facebook page on 29 August.

As ever, you need to skip to the end of the article for the full story. Here's the Eurostar spokesman:

“Like all businesses we continually monitor the range of products and services we offer to our customers and from time to time we trial new initiatives in order to better understand their views.

“Over recent years we have seen a decline in the number of cash-based sterling transactions as more customers choose to pay using debit cards.

“This prompted us to run a brief trial on board to gauge customers’ views about the possible withdrawal of this payment method at our buffets.

“Having listened carefully to the feedback from our customers it is clear that for many this is their preferred payment method and as a result we have decided to continue accepting cash-based sterling payments on board all our trains.”

So a week-long trial, during which people could still pay for snacks with their debit card, comes to an end and Eurostar decides to continue accepting 'cash-based sterling payments' anyway.

Or as the Express puts it: 'Sterling is not good enough say barmy Eurostar bosses.'

No room for tolerance

Writing for the Independent, freelance journalist Samuel Muston says:

The news that two gay asylum seekers fighting deportation have been given leave to stay in UK by the Supreme Court, is a welcome one.

The men, from Cameroon and Iran respectively, sought to challenge the previous government’s contention that they had no grounds for asylum as they could move “elsewhere” in their home states and be “discreet” about their sexuality...

This, then, is a good day for justice, a good day for compassion.

The tabloids, of course, weren't quite so sure this was a 'good day':



It's really, really hard to know where to begin. It's like wading into a stinking cesspool. Thankfully, Anton Vowl (here and here), Jonathan at No Sleep 'Til Brooklands and Dan Hollingsworth have already written blog posts about the coverage and they're all well worth reading.

But here's a few other observations.

First, Lord Roger admitted in his ruling that his comments about gay men going to Kylie concerts and drinking cocktails were 'trivial stereotypical examples'. But perhaps he should have been more media savvy and known that the intolerant, racist, homophobic tabloid press were going to leap on this point as a way of making the asylum system seem absurd - just as they did with that lie about the man who was (not) saved from deportation solely by his cat.

'Now' asylum seekers get to stay because of Kylie! You couldn't make it up!

The Express emphasise this point by saying 'Now...', which tabloids use at the start of a headline as shorthand for 'Look what stupid thing is going to happen now...'

Second, the Express' jumbled headline - and the tone of the other coverage - is totally misleading. The judgment doesn't mean every asylum seeker who is (or, in the tabloid mindset, claims to be) gay will be allowed to stay automatically, no matter how strong their actual case is.

The Express' ludicrous poll asks: 'Should you get asylum just for being gay?' This isn't the issue at all - as the writers of this muck well know. The issue is that certain countries are persecuting, imprisoning, flogging and executing homosexuals and that is a perfectly reasonable basis for them to seek asylum elsewhere.

And, as Jonathan says:

It's a thorny issue, so instead of arguing with the decision on moral or ethical grounds, which they can't really do without looking like they might have some kind of problem with gays and foreigners, just moan about how it obviously means that by 2015 the country will be sinking into the sea under the sheer weight of Iranians ostentatiously brandishing Scissor Sisters albums to try and pass as gay.

Third, the newspapers, the people leaving comments on the articles, and the two gobshites who pop up - tabloid favourites Andrew Green from Migrationwatch and MP Philip Davies - all suggest this ruling will, to quote the Star, 'open the floodgates'.

On the Sky News press preview last night, presenter Anna Botting suggested this would mean asylum seekers would now arrive in Britain and 'pass the gay ticket over' - whatever the hell that means.

But there's something deeply troubling about this view because behind it is the idea that asylum seekers are somehow looking for an angle. It's a belief based on the assumption that since asylum seekers aren't really fleeing persecution, they'll come to Britain and come up with any excuse going to be able to stay. It says: 'Now' they're all going to pretend to be gay if they think it'll work. This says much about the ground on which the asylum debate takes place.

Fourth, the attitudes of these newspapers are, of course, rooted in an anti-immigrant viewpoint.

So the Mail editorial says:

For at this time when our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all gay asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries.

Where are we to draw the line? This is all about numbers and a small island’s ability to absorb an ever-increasing population.

But the Express is rather more blunt:

Of course homosexuals across the globe should be able to live free from persecution but their right to do so should not take precedence in British law over the right of the British people not to have their country overrun by foreigners.

And not just overrun by foreigners but overrun by 'gay' foreigners.

The Express' sister paper, the Star, managed to top that and came up with a depressing, and disturbing, headline:


This really is grotesque. There are many, many reasons why Richard Desmond is a completely unfit person to be running two national newspapers and that putrid headline can be added to the list.

Given the history of the Star - who have very obviously labelled Muslims and immigrants as not 'us' - it would be generous to think this headline is only about yesterday's judgment. You can't help but feel it is aimed a little more widely than that. As Refugee Action tweeted:

The Daily Star thinks their headline 'No room for gays' is acceptable in 21st century Britain. We think not.

The editors of these tabloids know articles such as these - inflammatory, scaremongering, intolerant - push the buttons of their readers. Unfortunately, most have been so brainwashed by the daily drivel they are fed by these wretched publications that they believe it all at face value. Reading their comments is a disheartening experience and any number of them could have been highlighted here. But we'll stick with two.

This one, because it gives an idea of the cluelessness of many of them:


And this one because it highlights the dangers and possible consequences of such coverage:

Philip Davies and the Mail: the real PC obsessives

The latest 'PC brigade ban Christmas' nonsense comes in today's Mail. The article comes with the headline: Tinsel Taliban strikes as Court Service ban staff from decorations to avoid offence because, obviously, people who allegedly want to 'ban' coloured lengths of cheap shiny plastic are just like the Taliban.

The story claims this: Tory Baroness Warsi has received an email from an admin worker at Warwickshire Justice Centre in Nuneaton who claims tinsel has been banned under the company diversity and equality police because it offends people of other religions. Namely Muslims.

Banning Christmas things because of Mulims, diversity and equality - it's a Mail wet dream.

Except, once you read the quote from the Ministry of Justice spokesman, you strongly suspect it's not actually true. The Mail begins the quote with this:

Last night a source at the Ministry of Justice admitted that tinsel had been banned at the front-office counter at the Nuneaton office.

Which suggests all the above is true. But then:

'Over the counter, yes, where sensitive business like fine payments takes place,' he said. 'For that reason. Otherwise there is tinsel and stuff elsewhere.

'Nothing was removed for religious or diversity reasons.

'One piece of tinsel was removed from a counter where it was getting in the way. The rest of the tinsel remains there as festive as ever.'

So decorations have not been 'outlawed' as the Mail claimed. They've not been placed where people paying fines might not want them in their face, and one piece of tinsel was moved because it was in the way.

That's all the Mail is actually reporting on here.

A piece of tinsel has been moved in an office block because it was in the way.

Of course, it's clear that the Mail journalist Daniel Martin hasn't actually been to the building in question to see for himself.

But then the Mail has never much cared whether these stories are true or not. All they care about is that they fit the agenda and view of Britain the Mail wants to make people believe is true.

The Mail aren't alone - Tory MP Philip Davies is also obsessed with this fictional 'PC gone mad' idea. A rent-a-quote idiot who has never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting, Davies is the 'parliamentary spokesman' for the Campaign Against Political Correctness. The CAPC, ironically, is run by two idiots who have never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting.

The Guardian has revealed that rather than spending his time worrying about the serious political issues of the day, Davies has been bombarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission with letters asking questions such as:

Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person? PS I would be grateful if you could explain to me why it is so offensive to black up your face as I have never understood this.

It's just the type of comment that you would expect to read from a Mail reader.

Davies has said on several occasions that measures to tackle homophobic bullying are:

barmy, politically correct nonsense.

He said that Muslims should 'fuck off' in a made-up Sun story about an attack on a soldier's home in Windsor, which he then had to retract.

And now he claims he has 'never understood' why 'blacking up' is offensive.

Is it offensive to be a cretin or not, particularly if you are impersonating a Member of Parliament?

In the Guardian, Davies is quotes saying in response to these letters:

"Anybody who follows my career in parliament knows I'm concerned with the issue of political correctness. I'm merely pursuing a subject I raise more regularly than anyone else in parliament. It's one of my bugbears. Lots of people are castigated for being racist when that's not their intention."

Yes, but what about all those people castigated for being obsessed with political correctness based on half-truths and outright lies?

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.

Express front page inspired by Littlejohn

The Express has plumbed many depths since Richard Desmond has been in charge, but today's front page must rank among its lowest points. Because, believe it or not, it has been inspired by yesterday's Richard Littlejohn column.

Sigh.

Sex swap police scandal is a story about the National Trans Police Association and it begins:

Police chiefs were last night accused of a scandalous misuse of taxpayers’ money after helping to set up a special support group for sex-change staff.

Except, the story doesn't produce any evidence that the NTPA has received a penny of 'taxpayers' money'. Indeed, the second paragraph proves as much:

The National Trans Police Association is in line to pocket thousands of pounds of public money after winning the backing of senior officers.

'In line to'? So it hasn't yet, and may not? Deep in the story, it reveals:

The Home Office said: “We have not provided any funding for the National Trans Police Association.”

And although there is no direct quote, the Express states:

NTPA’s communications co-ordinator Martha Hand ...said the organisation would be applying for public funds to promote its work.

Given that the group has 50 members, it's unlikely to be coining it in, even if any funding application is successful.

But a story about the possible use of public funds...your starter for ten is: who do you think is called on for an 'outrage' quote?

TaxPayers Alliance, you say?

'This is totally absurd and a scandalous waste of money'.

You could almost think the TPA think it's inappropriate? Who else? Yes, it's Tory MP Philip Davies:

'I don’t care if a police officer is gay, straight, trans-gender or whatever, I just want them to catch criminals'.

But Davies doesn't explain how this support organisation - along with the many, many others that are within the police - stops them 'catching criminals'.

Then up pops the Campaign Against Political Correctness, a group with a horribly amateurish website, to add:

'We don’t need organisations like this. It’s just madness'.

It's an interesting use of the word 'we'. Obviously the 50 members of the National Trans Police Association feel they do need it. Compare that with the, umm, 11 people who follow the Campaign Against Political Correctness on Twitter. So who is this 'we' they claim to speak for?

They say on their website that among the problems with political correctness is that tries to:

bully people into conforming with a certain point of view...It undermines personal responsibility and freedom.

But isn't the CAPC bullying people to conform to its point of view, and undermining personal freedom, by saying this group should not exist?

The Express reiterates the idea that the establishment of this group somehow stops them:

concentrating on fighting crime.

But as Jonathan pointed out yesterday, why is there no such article or outrage about the Christian Police Association? Or the Jewish Police Association?

And can anyone explain how the existence of any of these associations stops officers fighting crime?

The Express has now added some poisonous anti-trans sentiment to that spread by Littlejohn yesterday by putting on its front page a total non-story designed to do nothing but stir up animosity towards this minority group.

Tackling homophobic bullying is 'politically correct nonsense' claims Mail and MP

A month ago, the Mail was one of many papers attacked a school in Kent for trying to educate its pupils about bullying, solely because part of the 30-minute assembly was about homophobic bullying.

At the time that, this blog said:

It is almost impossible to comprehend how the media can attack schools for attempting to save kids from the horror of bullying.

Well, now Ed Balls has announced new moves to crackdown on homophobic bullying. The Mail website gives this story the headline: Balls bans children's 'gay' jibes as government cracks down on sexual bullying.

The question is: why does it feel the need to put gay in quote marks? Would they feel the need to write it in the same way if the focus of the jibes was race or disability? Almost certainly not.

But we know from the Kent school story, the Mail doesn't have the slightest interest in protecting kids from homophobic bullying.

The story adds more totally unecessary quote marks:

A fresh move to ban children from using the word 'gay' as an insult was made by Schools Secretary Ed Balls last night...His department is now set to publish new guidance to crack down on 'sexist and sexual' bullying.

And then prize idiot and tediously predictable rent-a-quote gobshite Philip Davies MP turns up to call this 'more politically-correct nonsense'. The Mail uses this in the third paragraph of the story and never challenges it, which suggests more than a little sympathy with the comment. After all, since he doesn't appear to have issued a statement on his website about the issue, it seems journalist Brendan Carlin phoned up a man with form of calling measures to tackle homophobia 'politically-correct nonsense' to get the line.

So it's another stunningly original quote from the (ahem) Parliamentary Spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness.

Here's an excerpt from what Balls said:

In partnership with Stonewall and Educational Action Challenging Homophobia (EACH) we have also produced the first-ever guidance on tackling homophobic bullying. And we will shortly be publishing guidance on sexist, sexual and transphobic bullying too.

I'm clear that homophobic insults should be viewed as seriously as racism. Even casual use of homophobic language in schools - such as the worryingly prevalent but unacceptable use of the word "gay" as a derogatory term - can create an atmosphere that isolates young people and can be the forerunner for more serious forms of bullying.

Homophobic bullying creates an ugly climate of intimidation and can make it harder for young people to come out. And whether it's directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual young people, our guidance makes clear that such bullying should be challenged wherever it takes place.

Davies - and the Mail - appear not to agree that it should be challenged. They are both scum.

(For more on the Mail's anti-gay agenda, reads Angrymob's Section 28 story, which has the Mail continuing to claim the measure was about 'promoting' homosexuality.)

Melanie Phillips joins Mail attack on BBC

The BBC finds itself in the crosshairs of the Daily Mail once again. The whole of page 5, part of the editorial and a Melanie Phillips op-ed piece of today's edition are all devoted to attacking the Beeb. Partly because of expenses and partly that in order to broadcast over 170 hours of the Glastonbury festival on TV, radio and online, it had to send quite a few people to the event. Shock horror.

No word that the coverage was of a very high standard with viewers being able to pick and choose between everyone from Lady GaGa to Neil Young, Status Quo to Amadu and Mariam.

(The Telegraph, The Sun and the Star have also covered the Glastonbury angle, although all these stories are almost identical.)

The Mail says the BBC 'sent' 415 people to cover the event, but given that nearly half (190) were technicians and in total only 125 of the 415 were staff (the rest freelances and short-term contractors) it doesn't seem that excessive.

But according to rent-a-BBC-bashing-quote Tory MP Philip Davies it's 'another example of of how the BBC is bloated'. The Mail editorial dimisses it as a 'mass junket' to which all are invited.

The Mail claims all this cost an 'estimated' £1.5m although it doesn't even begin to explain where this figure has come from.

And then Melanie Phillips steps in. At one point she sniffily dismisses BBC presenters for 'knowingly' referring to the festival as 'Glasto', without realising the headline on the earlier story is, er, BBC's Glasto army. As Mail subs knowingly call it.

She admits that 'a huge outside broadcast...can't be covered with a handful of staff,' which is rather more generous than the editorial can manage. But she's more concerned with why the BBC is covering Glastonbury at all:

Glastonbury might be popular among the young, along with a bunch of superannuated hippies vicariously revisiting their lost adolescence.

In other words: How dare the BBC provide programmes that might be 'popular among the young'? She goes on:

It's hard not to conclude that Glastonbury...is an event with particular appeal for those of a certain age who were teenagers in the Sixties and Seventies. Which, by an amazing coincidence, just happens to be the age of many senior BBC executives.

In other words: How dare the BBC provide programmes for people who are between 43 and 68?

If the BBC weren't providing programmes for these age groups, or indeed covering major arts events, that would be wrong. But as this is modern music, it's not really important to the likes of the Mail and Melanie.

She turns this, as the editorial did, into a rant against the BBC and its expenses, claiming the publication of them caused 'such outrage'. Although the death of Michael Jackson rather ovetook the story, there was very little evidence, outside of the pages of the Mail, that there was 'such outrage'. (Maybe this is the same type of 'outrage' that led it to launch its 'Not in the Mail any more' campaign against wheelie bins)

But the evidence of her own outrage is quite odd. She points out that 'no fewer than 47 BBC executives were paid more than the Prime Minister's salary of £195,000,' including Director General Mark Thompson's £816,000. Which leads her to ask:

is he really saying that his job is four times as important as the Prime Minister's?

At which point, she should answer this question: Is her boss, Mail Editor Paul Dacre (paid £1.62m per year), really saying that his job is EIGHT times as important as the Prime Minister's? (And twice as important as the DG's?)

It would be interesting to know how much Melanie is paid as well, so we can see how many times more important she thinks she is than the PM.

Mail accuses Ross; conveniently forgets own past

The Daily Mail has found an excuse to run one of its favourite phrases: 'New Jonathan Ross row' this time as 'BBC bars Mike Tyson from show'.

Apparently BBC bosses 'vetoed' an appearance by 'convicted rapist' Tyson leaving Ross at the 'centre of a new controversy'. The truth comes out in the second paragraph of the story:

Executives at Ross’s production company, Hot Sauce, were interested in a proposed interview but BBC bosses dismissed the plan.

Right, so it sounds like it wasn't even Ross' idea, and in any case it was only 'interest' in a 'proposed' interview - quite different from the headline making it sound as if Tyson was already booked to appear when the BBC said no.

Up pops that rent-a-quote oik with nothing better to do - Philip Davies MP - to say, again: ‘This is the latest in a catalogue of errors of judgment made by Jonathan Ross. The BBC should have got rid of him when they had the chance.’

Since it clearly wasn't a judgement by Ross, it's another empty soundbite.

The Mail reporter Miles Goslett, piles in too, saying the episode is an 'embarrassment' and 'points to a lack of judgment'.

Really Miles? I would say a lack of judgement was not in wanting to interview Tyson, but in being 'charmed' by him and praising his 'wry good humour laced with wicked irony'. Who would say such thing? Jeff Powell. In the Mail.

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.