PCC agrees there is no Union Flag ban, 'requests' the Mail 'take heed'

In February, the Mail, Telegraph, Richard Littlejohn and others claimed that Suffolk Police were happily displaying the rainbow flag for LGBT History Month but were totally 'forbidden' from ever flying the Union Flag.

There was, as usual, no such ban on the Union Flag. It was completely untrue, and had any of the 'journalists' actually bothered to contact the police, they would have been told that.

The Press Complaints Commission received two complaints about the Mail's article. The PCC took the view that these were third-party complaints and so would not 'examine' them under the terms of the Code. But they had gone to the trouble of asking Suffolk Police if they wanted to pursue a complaint, but the constabulary decided against it.

Here's the PCC's full ruling (sent to this blog by one of the complainants):

The complainants were concerned that the claim the Union Flag had been banned by the Chief Constable of Suffolk was inaccurate. A spokesperson for the police had confirmed on Anglia TV that this was not correct and that both the rainbow flag and Union Flag were flown outside the police headquarters.

The Commission fully acknowledged the concerns raised by the complainants in regard to the accuracy of the article. However, the Commission generally only considers complaints from those directly affected by the matters about which they complained.

In this instance, the article related directly to the Suffolk Constabulary and as such, the Commission would require its involvement in order to come to a view on the matter. It had therefore proactively contacted the police force, which had been aware of the article but had decided not to make a formal complaint about it.

While it emphasised that the concerns of the complainants were indeed legitimate, it did not consider in the absence of the participation of the police 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 Suffolk Constabulary.

That said, it recognised that the complainants had provided information which had a bearing on the accuracy of the claim made in the article and, as such, it requested that the newspaper would take heed of the points raised in the complaints and alter the article accordingly. In light of the police’s decision not to pursue a complaint against the newspaper, the Commission could not comment on the matter further.

So clearly the PCC agrees the story is rubbish. It seems quite obvious it breaches the Code of Practice clause on accuracy. Yet all the PCC have done is to have:

requested that the newspaper would take heed of the points raised in the complaints and alter the article accordingly.

Given that the PCC said they were not going to deal with the complaint formally, that is, perhaps, more than they might have done.

But as yet, the Mail have not taken heed of this request. Hopefully they will - although there appears to be no sanction for ignoring it.

And would an 'alteration' (which would be difficult, given the whole article is about the Union Flag 'ban') to the story, done without fanfare, matter two months later anyway?

UPDATE: The Mail have done more than 'alter' the original article - they've removed it completely. They've also edited Littlejohn's column to remove his reference to the ban. Yet in neither case have they explained why - there appears to be no clarification or apology. This way, they can just pretend they never said it in the first place.

Littlejohn gets it wrong (again)

In his column today, Richard Littlejohn says:

Following last year’s triumphant forecast of a ‘barbecue summer’, the Met Office is now predicting a ‘phew-what-a-scorcher’ August this year.

So expect a small tsunami. Better start stocking up on umbrellas, dinghies and galoshes, just in case.

This short piece seems to have been thrown in at the last minute, as several newspapers reported on a long-range weather forecast yesterday.

Unfortunately for Littlejohn, that forecast came from Positive Weather Solutions (PWS). Not the Met Office.

Oh, and the Met Office's infamous 'barbecue summer' forecast wasn't 'last year' but in 2009.

So that's two factual errors in one sentence.

In fact, PWS did predict summer 2010 would be a 'good time to get the barbecue out' - as reported in the Daily Mail under the headline 'BBQ summer ahead!'

Moreover, as Littlejohn might have heard, the Met Office announced last year:

We have therefore decided to stop issuing a UK 'seasonal forecast' four times a year. Instead, we will now publish a monthly outlook, updated on a weekly basis.

If he missed their press release, he could have read the news in the paper he writes for.

But the 2011 forecast was, in any case, less clear-cut than Littlejohn and others made out. Indeed, PWS issued a statement yesterday regarding the various media reports of their forecast:

On Monday, March 28th, 2011, PWS was quoted on the front of the Daily Telegraph with the headline 'A Barbeque August'. On the inside of The Sun, their headline read 'Summer Washout'. So two newspapers, with two different interpretations...

Whilst the Daily Star also followed the path of the Daily Telegraph, the only two newspapers which seemed to have the balance correct, and indeed the quotes correct, were the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, who quite rightly went along the lines of a mixed June and July, with August possibly [their emphasis] offering the best of the weather.

If you can see the word 'barbeque' in our August forecast, please let us know.

(Hat-tips to robaparis and uponnothing)

'Face the Facts' on media coverage of Muslims

Today's Face the Facts on BBC Radio 4 looked at Islamophobia and asked:

Are sections of the British press increasing tensions within communities by publishing negative stories about Muslims?

...why are newspapers publishing distorted, islamophobic stories that provoke far-right extremists? Should the Press Complaints Commission impose tougher sanctions? Or do editors need to take more responsibility for the consequences of what they print?

It is an excellent investigation by John Waite that debunks Winterval (with help from Kevin Arscott), the extractor fan and swimming pool stories, the Muslim plots (that weren't) against Coronation Street and the Pope, the smearing of Inayat Bunglawala and the tale of 'diktat' to change school lessons because of Ramadan.

It also includes an interview with the PCC's Stephen Abell.

But were any of the newspapers that pump out this rubbish willing to defend their 'stories'?

Neither the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Star or Sun wished to appear on the programme today, and the editor of the Express was simply 'too busy'.

What a surprise.

Churnalism to sell an app

Last week, we had the annual trotting out of the 'Blue Monday' myth - supposedly the most depressing day of the year. It has rightly been dismissed as 'churnalism' and 'bullshit' by Ben Goldacre:

The "most depressing day of the year" began life as a "wacky academic" equation story. This is the kind of thing PR companies offer as "advertising equivalent exposure" for companies who want their brand in the papers.

The equation stunt was not the work of an academic, it was paid for by Sky Travel, and Blue Monday comes just after your first pay cheque arrives, the perfect time to book a holiday.

Well, according to several suspiciously similar stories in the papers today, then 10am on Tuesday is the most stressful time of the week. Here's the Mirror:

And the Mail:

And the Telegraph:


And the Express:


Every article contains the same 'facts' from what they all call 'research'. They all contain the same quotes from the same spokesman and much the same text in between. For example, here's the Mail:

The study of office workers aged between 18 and 45 quizzed respondents on their level of stress throughout the typical working week.

It found a quarter regularly feel stressed at work and for three quarters of workers they regularly come to the end of their tether by 11.16am each day. But one in five find it gets too much before nine o'clock.

Four in ten blamed heavy workloads and a third said dealing with difficult clients or customers left them feeling frazzled.

Yet three in ten admitted it was their boss which caused them tension in the office and one in six blamed their colleagues for not listening to their cries for help.

And the Telegraph:

The study of office workers aged between 18 and 45 quizzed respondents on their level of stress throughout the typical working week.

It found a quarter regularly feel stressed at work and for three quarters of workers they regularly come to the end of their tether by 11.16am each day. But one in five find it gets too much before nine o'clock.

Four in ten blamed heavy workloads and a third said dealing with difficult clients or customers left them feeling frazzled.

Yet three in ten admitted it was their boss which caused them tension in the office and one in six blamed their colleagues for not listening to their cries for help.

Yes, they are identical.

It is revealed, somewhat inevitably, that this 'research' is from a recruitment agency. They wouldn't have an interest in getting people thinking about their 'stressful' jobs, would they?

Yet it is only the Express, in its final sentence, that truly gives the game away:

[The agency] has just launched a smartphone app designed to take the stress out of finding a new job.

So a dubious bit of 'research' sent out to journalists in a press release in order to sell a smartphone app gets the classic 'churnalism' treatment.

EU could make it up

The Telegraph has made new claims about what the EU is going to 'force' the UK to do in this article which appeared yesterday:


The word 'hijack' was actually used by a UKIP MEP although he doesn't actually say what the headline claims:

Paul Nuttall, a Ukip MEP, accused the EU of wanting to impose its view of history on war sites such as the Menin Gate, which marks the 55,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the First World War fighting of the Ypres Salient but who have no known graves.

"As we come up to Remembrance Sunday it is outrageous to think that the EU might try and hijack the Menin Gate when in fact it commemorates the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died to protect our independence from Europe," he said.

But a letter from the European Commission Spokesperson for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth debunks the Telegraph's story:

You claim that the EU wants to ‘hijack’ Remembrance Sunday with a plan to put euro-branded commemorative plaques marking “European integration” on war cemeteries and memorials in the UK (27 October). This is nonsense and a serious distortion of the facts, which were explained in some detail to your correspondent.

The facts are that the UK government and other Member States asked the European Commission to come forward with an initiative for a ‘European Heritage Label’, which will mark sites which have an important place in European history and European integration.

Under our proposal, which was backed by the European Parliament this week, it will be up to national governments to nominate sites for the award, if they want to. The sites might include places of remembrance. An independent expert panel will assess the nominations it receives from national governments and decide which of them merits the heritage label.

If the panel receives no nominations from the UK, no sites in the UK would display the European Heritage Label.

The EU cannot unilaterally impose the heritage label on anyone.

We believe the scheme will raise international awareness of heritage sites all over Europe and that the cost of the initiative will be far outweighed by the economic benefits it will bring for the sites themselves, for job creation and for local businesses in terms of increased tourism.

To suggest that the EU wants to ‘hijack’ Remembrance Sunday is frankly outrageous. It dishonours the newspaper to write such rubbish and, more importantly, it dishonours those who sacrificed their lives for the freedom we take for granted today.

Dennis Abbott
Captain (Retd), Royal Signals
European Commission Spokesperson for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth

This is the not the only time this week that newspaper stories about the EU have been challenged. Yesterday, Jonathan Scheele, Head of EU Representation in the UK, wrote to the News of the World explaining that one of their claims was very slightly out:

Your article “We scrimp and save …. Eurocrats splurge” published 24 October incorrectly states that the 2011 budget for the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is 158 million pounds. Cedefop’s draft budget for 2011 is in fact ten times lower, ie 15.48 million pounds.

That was noticed by Minority Thought, as was the response to the Sunday Express' silly 'EU is on another planet' headline (also looked at by Atomic Spin).

The paper claimed in one sub-head that £670million was to be wasted 'making explicit films'. Clearly Express owner Richard Desmond has a vested interest in other people getting involved in the explicit film business.

But the story admitted that these weren't really 'explicit films' at all but are actually 'art-house films', although the Express dismisses these as 'revelling in scenes of sex and violence'.

Once again, Dennis Abbott responded, leaving a lengthy comment on the Express' website:

Don't you mean the Express is on another planet?

Kirsty Buchanan, congratulations: you are hereby inducted into the Express 'Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of the Story' hall of journalistic fantasy.

You write that the EU is funnelling taxpayers' cash 'into subsidies for pro-European documentaries and art-house films revelling in senes of sex and violence'.

Here are the facts, for anyone who's interested. By the way, I explained them to Kirsty last Friday:

The EU's aid for the film industry prohibits support for explictly pornographic or racist films or films promoting violence.

Oh and we do not just support 'art-house' films. Recent beneficiaries of funding from the EU include the companies behind award-films like Slumdog Millionaire, The Wind that Shakes The Barley and The Pianist. You may be aware that these films also did quite well at the box office.

Without EU funding at the early stages, these films might never have got off the drawing board.

Thr UK is among the biggest net beneficiaries of EU funding through the MEDIA fund for cinema (ie the UK gets a lot more out of the fund than it puts in).

Why does the EU help to fund the film sector - especially small operators? Because we want to help to create and safeguard jobs in the industry, and to ensure diversity.

If any readers want to find out the facts about EU funding for cinema, click here:

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/overview/index_en.htm

If they want to know more about programmes revelling in sex, they're much better off checking out Television X or Red Hot TV ... and we know you [sic] runs them, don't we?

Best regards

Dennis Abbott
EC spokesperson for education and culture

It's interesting to note that in both responses by Abbott, he makes clear that the journalist who wrote the story was told the EU's side of the story in advance but, in both cases, they seem to have deliberately ignored it.

'The health and safety aspect of the story is a media addition'

Here's what Richard Littlejohn said about health and safety on 21 September 2010:

For the past 15 years, this column has made a good living out of elf 'n' safety. Now, though, the Government is promising to put an end to the madness, scrapping the stupid rules and risk assessments, and derailing the spiv lawyers cashing in on the com-pen-say-shun culture.

No one has told Lancaster City Council, which has banned revellers from watching the city's annual fireworks display from Castle Hill, citing - you guessed - elf 'n' safety,

Even though it has taken place for the past 18 years without anyone getting hurt. Looks like there's still some mileage in it for me yet.

And here's what he says today:

Lord Young’s report on elf’n’safety stupidity was long overdue and his recommendations sensible — particularly over the spiv lawyers at Blame Direct and the hyper-cautious risk assessment industry.

But he’s got his work cut out. Over the weekend, the new, touchy-feely sunflower seeds exhibition at Tate Modern was closed down because of fears it could bring on asthma attacks...

Another report highlighted the loss of most of Britain’s historic cobbled streets, which are being dug up and buried under Tarmac by councils on the off-chance someone might slip over and sue for com-pen-say-shun.

This column has made a good living out of elf’n’safety over the years. If Lord Young succeeds, I’m out of a job.

Fortunately, given the stubborn endurance and bloody-mindedness of the British bureaucrat, I’m confident there’ll be some mileage in it for a few years yet.

It seems there is one type of recycling that Littlejohn thinks is acceptable...

But there's some interesting points made in the Young Report that Littlejohn has conveniently overlooked. Such as:

Britain’s ‘compensation culture’ is fuelled by media stories about individuals receiving large compensation payouts for personal injury claims and by constant adverts in the media offering people non-refundable inducements and the promise of a handsome settlement if they claim.

And:

One of the great misconceptions, often perpetuated by the media, is that we can be liable for the consequences of any voluntary acts on our part. During winter 2009/10, advice was given on television and radio to householders not to clear the snow in front of their properties in case any passer by would fall and then sue.

This is another manifestation of the fear of litigation. In fact there is no liability in the normal way, and the Lord Chief Justice himself is reported as saying that he had never come across a case where someone was sued in these circumstances.

And:

We have all read countless media stories blaming health and safety regulations for all manner of restrictions on our everyday life...

The Health and Safety Executive runs a successful ‘myth of the month’ page on its website; however, there is no end to the constant stream of misinformation in the media.

Again and again ‘health and safety’ is blamed for a variety of decisions, few of which actually have any basis in health and safety legislation at all.

Young looks at three health and safety stories that he says are myths. One is the case of the Dovedale stepping stones, which hit the headlines in August. 'Dovedale's iconic stepping stones paved over amid health and safety fears', screeched the Mail. 'Concrete slabs placed on historic stepping stones due to health and safety', huffed the Telegraph.

Young says:

Like so many health and safety stories in the media, the renovation of the Dovedale stepping stones has nothing at all to do with health and safety.

The stones date from the Victorian era but over time had weathered and sunk down into the river bed, thereby becoming uneven. Some had sunk to such a degree that the route became inaccessible for parts of the year. The only other route across the river is via a footbridge up a narrow scree slope, which is harder to access.

The stones are on National Trust land but as they form part of a public right of way Derbyshire County Council is responsible for maintaining them. Therefore the National Trust asked the council to look at the stones. This resulted in the stones being raised to their original height. Similar renovation methods have been used in the past.

The issue here was that a public right of way had become inaccessible. It seems that the health and safety aspect of the story is a media addition.

And, as this blog mentioned in a post about media articles about 'bans' that aren't really bans at all, Littlejohn and his ilk will continue to get their 'mileage' out of it if they keep exaggerating or inventing these 'health and safety' stories.

Banned

The Daily Mail reports:


James Tozer's article begins:

Once they fought them on the beaches. Seventy years later it seems they are fighting them in the aisles.

But this time the enemy is the German-owned Aldi supermarket.

It has infuriated war veterans by refusing to let them sell remembrance poppies in one of its stores.

Except at the end of the very same story, Aldi say:

‘Requests to collect in-store or leave collection tins in-store are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and due to Mr Myerscough’s age, we will gladly allow him to collect in store.’

It appears that one store - in Manchester - had originally said that the Royal British Legion could do their collecting:

under the ‘protective overhead canopy’ outside the store.

Tozer claims this was:

little more than a declaration of war.

But Aldi have since changed their mind and allowed him into the store.

So the Mail knew their headline and the spin on their article about poppy selling being 'banned' (and by Germans!) wasn't true. Yet they went ahead with it anyway.

This is the latest in a very long line of media reports about something being 'banned' which hasn't quite turned out to be entirely accurate.

At the weekened, the Star and the Telegraph both reported that traffic wardens and parking staff from one council have been 'banned' from smiling.

In the Star, Emily Hall wrote:

Traffic wardens have been banned from smiling in case it makes cheesed-off drivers more irate.

The Telegraph said clearly:


Quite how a council polices a 'ban' on facial expressions isn't immediately clear. But that implies Hall and the Telegraph churnalist have actually thought about this story.

In fact, the local paper revealed that during training, staff were told that smiling might not be appropriate when dealing with irate members of the public as it could upset them further.

Once again, a example of people being given guidance becomes a story about a 'ban'.

On Sunday, the Express claimed:

Nanny state rules have banned scissors, plasters and creams in council first aid kits to stop accident victims suing over medical mishaps.

Really? 'State rules' have 'banned' these things? There isn't a council first aid kit anywhere in the country with plasters and scissors inside? On what bit of comprehensive research has the Express come to this conclusion?

One worker for one of England’s biggest county councils, who didn’t want to be named, said: "It is ridiculous. The kit supplied in our pool car doesn’t have scissors, plasters or antiseptic cream and when I asked why not I was told about the legal implications."

Ah. One anonymous person from one unnamed council giving an example about one first aid kit. Even if what that one person says is true, it's a big jump to go from that to a nationwide ban.

Moreover, the HSE, in guidance revised in October 2009, say that in low-hazard work environments a 'minimum stock of first-aid items' would include 20 plasters, eye pads, triangle bandages, safety pins, wound dressings and disposable gloves.

Yes, it also says:

It is recommended that you don’t keep tablets and medicines in the first-aid box.

But that seems more like common sense than some indecipherable nanny-state ruling.

Then there was the story about Barnet Council 'banning' mother-in-law jokes which appeared in the Mail, Star and Telegraph (and many other places).

Had they? No:

Barnet Council has denied censoring staff by putting a ban on mother-in-law jokes, after a handout used at a training session described them as “sexist” and disrespectful to elders.

Around 30 staff members attending the equality and diversity practise workshop were given the booklet cautioning them on their use of humour.

In the document, put together by a £550-a-day independent trainer it says: “Careful on Humour: Humour can be incredibly culture-specific, and is very open to misinterpretation or even offense [sic] by other cultures. And don’t forget: when you don’t know what people are laughing at, it is easy to imagine that they are laughing at you.

“Example: British mother-in-law jokes, as well as offensively sexist in their own right, can also be seen as offensive on the grounds that they disrespect elders or parents.”

However, a spokesman for Barnet Council said the document was not a policy document, but merely used as an example of how workers should be mindful of causing offence to people of other cultures.

They added: "Barnet council does not have a policy on mother-in-law jokes. “The information was given in a handout to 30 staff who attended a one off training course by a third party trainer and is not a council document.

“Our advice to staff is that they should be polite and avoid giving offence to any member of the public.”

(More on that from Five Chinese Crackers)

One of the hacks who delights in this 'can you believe what they've banned now?' stuff is, of course, Richard Littlejohn. During the World Cup he claimed:

Just in time for the start of the World Cup in South Africa, a primary school in Essex has banned playground football. You guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Four days later, he had to publish an unqualified apology after the headteacher told him football had been suspended to punish bad behaviour.

But that didn't deter him. A few weeks ago, he wrote:

For the past 15 years, this column has made a good living out of elf 'n' safety.

How nice of him to admit that's he's been paid handsomely for flogging the same dead horse for a decade-and-a-half.

He continued:

Now, though, the Government is promising to put an end to the madness, scrapping the stupid rules and risk assessments, and derailing the spiv lawyers cashing in on the com-pen-say-shun culture.

No one has told Lancaster City Council, which has banned revellers from watching the city's annual fireworks display from Castle Hill, citing - you guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Even though it has taken place for the past 18 years without anyone getting hurt.
Looks like there's still some mileage in it for me yet.

Of course, one of the reasons he's been able to get so much 'mileage' out of it is because he wildly exaggerates what 'elf'n'safety' is actually responsible for.

In the case of the Lancaster fireworks, Primly Stable did more research than Littlejohn could manage. He found a report in the Lancaster Guardian that told a rather different story:

Lancaster City Council has decided not to allow people into the Castle and Priory area on November 6, citing negative feedback from visitors last year and potential safety issues.

Yes, safety was one issue (although it's not clear why ensuring people are safe should be considered a 'bad thing'). But what about the negative feedback?

Gill Hague, the council’s assistant head of community engagement, said that the area would be completely closed off to the public.

She added: “Visitors told us that the castle precinct was cramped and is not a particularly good area from which to view the fireworks due to its historic layout.

“Many people found that their view of the fireworks was blocked by spectators, buildings and trees. Last year we experimented with limiting numbers at the castle but we received similar comments.”

She added that people’s safety was one consideration.

So although safety was 'one consideration', the Council have actually 'cited' the fact that last year's spectators thought the area was cramped and didn't give a good view of the firework display.

That 'elf'n'safety' story appeared just a few days after the tabloids had given the Winterval myth yet another outing.

And on the 2 October the media was falling over itself to come up with examples of silly health and safety rules following a series of interviews by Lord Young - who has been asked by the Government to produce recommendations that will put an end to such 'madness'.

The Sun came up with several examples of health and safety gone mad. For example:

Residents in flats were barred from hanging washing on lines from their balconies by officials in Croydon, South London. They said the clothes may fall on passers-by beneath the flats and hurt them.

Except they didn't say that at all. Croydon Council weren't worried about a wet shirt falling on to passers-by, but entire rotary washing lines:

The use of rotary dryers attached to a balcony or a walkway...presents a health and safety risk to other residents if they fall. This could happen in high winds or when the dryer is overloaded with heavy and wet washing. They are also an eyesore and can cause damage to the council’s property. The council does not give permission to any resident to use a rotary dryer in this way.

Instead of fixing a rotary dryer to the building there are lots of other folding dryers available that are free-standing and can be taken indoors after use.

That might still strike the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade as needlessly officious, but at least they should be honest about what is actually being said.

Another example the Sun quoted was about a ban on toothpicks:

A restaurant in Cheshire banned toothpicks from being given to customers in case they hurt themselves and sued. The barmy call came after advice from a health and safety consultant without any qualifications.

In fact, one customer who wanted to pick his teeth in public (shudder) had been told he couldn't have one. The Mail blamed the 'Toothpick Taliban' and said:

it seems the toothpick has become the latest victim of the health and safety police.

But later in the article they acknowledged:

However, a Macdonald Hotels spokesman denied there was a toothpick ban, and suggested 'there were simply none available on the night'.

Indeed, the hotel's Regional General Manager explained:

- There is absolutely no directive from Head Office with regards toothpicks, and this was not noted to the guest by the senior manager on duty, as implied by the various articles

- There is no law against toothpicks, and this was certainly not reported to the guest concerned

- The hotel had genuinely run out of toothpicks, and we are at a complete loss as to why the waiter would have come up with the Health & Safety excuse, unfortunately being a casual staff member and University student, we haven't as yet seem him to ask

- The guest concerned had in fact ordered a bespoke meal for himself and his wife, and this was different to the rest of the visiting diners

- The guest was found a "toothpick" once the situation had been brought to the attention of the manager on duty that evening

So how has the Sun concluded a 'health and safety consultant without any qualifications' had 'banned' toothpicks?

One other example the Sun uses is about a pancake race:

People taking part in a Shrove Tuesday pancake race in St Albans, Herts, were told by a council official to walk rather than run - because recent rain made it dangerous.

Lord Young calls this 'the worst case I've come across.' Now this one is actually true. But was it a big deal? The St Albans Review reported:

Organisers and competitors alike have denied a national press report that yesterday's St Albans pancake race was ruined by excessive safety fears...

The Daily Mail reported that the event was booed, and some competitors complained the ban was pointless as the rain was very light.

But district councillor Melvyn Teare, the responsible cabinet member, said: "It was raining heavily so it was decided for safety reasons that people would have to walk rather than run...But despite the rain, it was a successful event and everybody seemed to enjoy themselves."

He was backed by competitor Louise Miller from a team representing the Grove House hospice, who said: "How sad that certain daily newspapers need to put a negative spin on such a fun, community event...It was raining, there was no booing - in fact as ever there was a great atmosphere and lots of laughter and cheering"...

Nicola O'Donnell, from the winning team Strutt and Parker, said: "We had a really good time. I thought it was a great event and we'll do it again next year. It was a shame it was raining, but the ban on running didn't affect us in any way."

The paper adds:

Just a stone's throw away in Rickmansworth, one pancake race competitor took a tumble on a slippery pavement, which perhaps could have been avoided if the same health and safety regulations had been applied.

Yes, the walking pancake race may have been over-cautious, but it didn't seem to have much effect on the event itself. So what's the problem?

There is a clear agenda behind these 'banned' stories - that people can't do what they want any more because of health and safety or political correctness or the EU or because it might offend some minority.

Certain newspapers treat every bit of guidance as a 'ban'. Safety concerns are seen as needless meddling. One-off incidents are considered to be part of nationwide diktats.

Very often the examples are exaggerated, if not completely wrong. For example, there have been other stories about bans on buying a dozen eggs, on England flags and football shirts and on milk jugs. None of them were true.

But newspapers know that readers (and, it seems, politicians) react to this stuff so, as Littlejohn warned, there's still plenty of mileage in it for them yet...

Making a meal of a Cornish Pasty

It's surprising that this 'EU and their crazy regulations' story from the Telegraph didn't get picked up by other papers:


Martin Beckford's article says:

The European Commission is drawing up guidelines on the permitted ingredients of the traditional West Country lunch, so that it can be given the same protected status as other regional specialties such as Melton Mowbray pork pies.

Officials have decreed that only minced or diced beef, sliced potato, onion and swede are allowed to fill the pastry.

Baffling judgements and official decrees are the stuff of much EU reporting.

So what does the Cornish Pasty Association have to say about this EU meddling?

Following some press coverage over the past few days, the Cornish Pasty Association can confirm that the European Commission (EC) does not dictate ingredients or names of ingredients for products seeking EU protected status.

Products from the UK looking to get protected status prepare their applications stipulating the criteria, description and recipe of their food products. The EC will evaluate the applications once they are revised by Defra. The EC will provide the final approval on any particular product.

The Cornish Pasty Association has applied for Protected Geographical Indication to request that only Cornish pasties made in Cornwall and to the traditional recipe and manner are called Cornish pasties.

A joint letter to the Telegraph from the Cornish Pasty Association and the EU Representative in the UK says Beckford's article 'whilst amusing is inaccurate'.

Churnalism: that's the way to do it

In Richard Littlejohn's latest book, which was serialised in the Mail in March, he says in his rant about political correctness:

Already some seaside councils have scrapped donkey rides on the grounds of animal cruelty and Punch and Judy because it glorifies domestic violence.

Neither claim was accurate and as the Punch and Judy website says:

the myth that Mr. Punch had been 'banned' by the authorities for not being politically correct duly entered contemporary folklore.

Yet a new version of this tale has emerged in both the Mail:


and Telegraph:


'PC officials'. 'Warnings'. 'Ordered'. Really?

The Mail says:

officials at a coastal resort have deemed a traditional Punch and Judy show too shocking for modern tastes, and ordered any violence to be removed from the script.

But who are the 'officials'? What 'warnings' did they give? Who 'ordered' the changes?

It's not very surprising to find that neither the Mail or Telegraph answer any of those questions - because those officials don't actually exist. It's just the usual lashing out at a generic 'PC brigade'.

Will people watching the show spot that 'any violence' has been 'removed from the script'? Probably not, as the Mail's article makes clear when it quotes the puppeteer:

"Mr Punch is still a rascal and still has a variety of weapons in his arsenal but they are more socially appropriate."

He also reveals Punch's usual stick has been replaced by a mop. Do these newspapers have nothing more important to write about than that?

Puppeteer Daniel Liversidge, who entertains kids under the name Mr Marvel, advertises his services like this:

Punch and Judy
Traditional and modern at the same time, the Punch and Judy show takes the original story of the timeless old rascal, Mr Punch, and brings him bang up to date in a politically correct 21st Century! The show includes the ever-present Judy, the long suffering baby and a surprise appearance from a very snappy crocodile, all kept under control by PC Plod, the policeman.

Therefore, it appears this 'up to date' version is, in fact, Liversidge's usual act. Thus the claim he's been 'ordered' to change it by 'officials' in Portsmouth looks even more hollow.

Indeed, in the Belfast Telegraph:

Nick Fletcher, spokesman for the venue, said the tower's management had not called for the changes to the show but said such alterations were inevitable...

"We have put no restraints on him but he has taken on board constructive comments from elsewhere and decided to make his Punch and Judy show more modern."

So how did the Mail and Telegraph write almost exactly the same story, with exactly the same slant and exactly the same quotes?

Step forward Blue Zebra PR. On Wednesday, they sent out a press release with the title 'Punch and Judy politics affect portsmouth performance: Puppet show toned down to meet PC standards' knowing that would get them - and their clients - some column inches from the usual suspects. The accuracy of it is, to them, secondary.

And the churnalism duly followed. For example, look at this paragraph from the Telegraph, repeating Littlejohn's lie about Colchester Borough Council:

However the three-hundred -year old show is increasingly falling victim to political correctness. Wiltshire council once discussed taking Punch and Judy books off their library shelves while Colchester council even planned to ban the puppet shows altogether.

And then this, from the original press release:

After Wiltshire County Council considered taking Punch and Judy books off its library shelves, and Colchester Borough Council threatened to ban the puppet shows, professors of the puppetry performance have felt under pressure to improve its reputation and bring a good name back to the nostalgic show.

All the quotes from Liversidge, and the event's commercial manager Paul Mahy, and all the bits in between, have been copied-and-pasted by the Mail and Telegraph straight from the press release.

Just to check the story, I emailed the Blue Zebra PR contact and asked for clarification on who the officials were. I got a reply, but didn't get an answer. But I was told:

Sadly we are unable to approve journalist’s stories before they go out, however we still think that the coverage for our client...is great!

Which says it all.

For comparison, screenshots of the press release and the two articles follow (click to enlarge):

Council doesn't 'force' schools to do anything about Ramadan

So soon after the 'Muslims force pool cover-up' story that wasn't quite true, a similar story surfaces in the Mail:


Telegraph:

Star:

Express:

and on the BBC:

The wording of some of these headlines, as in the swimming pool cover-up one, suggests this is something being 'forced' on people to 'appease' the whims of Muslims.

Here's how the Star reports it:

Headteachers have been told to stop sex education lessons during Ramadan to avoid offending Muslims.

Council bosses are also set to enforce strict rules to ban swimming lessons and even exams during the Muslim holy month.

Now it is worth skipping straight to the end of the Express' article to show how accurate all this is:

Labour councillor Ruth Rosenau, said: “It is just asking schools to be more aware. We are not trying to impose any rules.”

A council spokesman yesterday stressed it was up to individual headteachers whether or not to implement the guidance.

Ah. And this comes just a few paragraphs after the Express calls it a 'diktat'.

So Stoke-on-Trent Council issue some guidance which schools can implement or completely ignore, and this is turned into headlines about what schools are being 'forced' to do because of them Muslims.

(It is reminiscent of the 'England shirts banned from pubs' headlines which sprung up before the World Cup, a deliberate misreporting of some police guidance which landlords could listen to, or not.)

But once it's clear that schools do not have to abide by this guidance, the outrage inherent in these articles looks as hollow as usual.

The council document is actually made up of extracts from a 2007 Muslim Council of Britain report Towards Greater Understanding: Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools.

The elements of the guidance the media has picked up on - about exams, swimming and sex education - are all listed in the MCB's booklet as 'features of good practice'.

But neither they nor the council in Stoke-on-Trent are demanding they all be adopted. Phrases such as 'appropriate consideration' and 'try to avoid being scheduled' are evident; phrases such as 'we demand' are not.

For example, on swimming:

In general, participation in swimming is an acceptable activity whilst fasting.

However, for many pupils this activity may prove to be an issue, as the potential for swallowing water is very high. Some pupils or parents consider the risk too great and may wish to avoid swimming whilst fasting. Others may take the view that as swallowing water is unintentional it does not break the fast.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.

And on exams:

It is inevitable that certain statutory and internal school examinations may fall during Ramadan. Schools should give appropriate consideration when scheduling internal examinations, since the combination of preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils.

Several of the headlines refer to 'avoiding insulting/offending Muslims'. It is a nasty little phrase that's become all too popular with stories such as this.

But are these suggestions about 'avoiding offending Muslims', or about schools being sensitive to the religious beliefs and wellbeing of their pupils? As 5CC says, why is it the latter is so often reported as the former by the tabloids, and blown out of all proportion?

And they're blown out of proportion for a reason. The tabloids know this 'special treatment for minorities' narrative goes down very well with their readers - never mind that most of it is highly exaggerated if not outright lies.

Yet believe it or not, some of this reporting is actually a very slight improvement on media coverage three years ago when the MCB report first came out. The Express claimed the MCB wanted to:

Ban un-Islamic schools

and had drawn up proposals that were disgracefully labelled as:

calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions

If this blog had existed then, that article would almost certainly have been mentioned...

UPDATE: 5CC did exist in 2007 and did blog about the Express' article. He called it 'bullshit'.

(Hat-tips to 5CC, Liberal Conspiracy and readers Chris and Midge)

Shock as EU says: 'You can still buy a dozen eggs if you want'

The Mail on Sunday's front page headline was one of those you see and just know is probably not true:


It's a tabloid favourite - look at what those meddling Europeans are trying to ban now. The last notable example was the Express' 'ban' on milk jugs which the paper eventually admitted was total rubbish.

But it says much about the attitude to the EU that a newspaper thinks this is both true and a front page story. Inevitably, many people who also hate the EU start to believe it too.

But the EU is to ban people buying eggs by the dozen? Really? You mean we won't be able to go anywhere and buy 12 eggs?

Who can seriously believe that?

Well, Iain Dale, for one. He claimed the story was 'well-sourced' and even stooped so low as to say 'you really couldn't make it up'.

Sigh.

He added that, in future, we definitely won't be able to buy limes individually either. How can anyone think that you won't be able to go and buy one lime if you want to?

Back to the article and Mail on Sunday hack Christopher Leake wrote:

British shoppers are to be banned from buying eggs by the dozen under new regulations approved by the European Parliament.

For the first time, eggs and ­other products such as oranges and bread rolls will be sold by weight instead of by the number contained in a packet.

So even if you accept that this is what the proposed EU regulations say (it's not), the idea that someone would go and pick up a six-egg-shaped box of eggs and not know there are six eggs inside, because the packet has 372g on the side, defies belief.

The Mail on Sunday tried to pretend that all this will add a burden to the industry as all eggs will have to weighed but, as John Band has pointed out, eggs are already classified by their weight anyway. Moreover, NoseMonkey has explained that the resolution 'makes precisely no mention of outlawing selling by numbers'.

Yet other media outlets regurgitated the story, including the Telegraph, BBC, Mirror and Sun.

Then the Mail added fuel to the fire, with two follow-up stories by Steve Doughty: Leave our eggs alone Tories warn Brussels and We won't let Brussels stop you buying eggs by the dozen, ministers promise.

But just after 11am this morning, the European Parliament issued a statement:

MEPs are neither trying to ban the sale of eggs by the dozen nor the sale or marketing of Nutella. MEP Renate Sommer, who is steering legislation on food labelling through the European Parliament, said, "There will be no changes to selling foods by number. Selling eggs by the dozen, for example, will not be banned."

'Selling eggs by the dozen will not be banned'. That's odd given the Mail on Sunday very clearly said:


The European Parliament statement continued:

No ban on eggs by the dozen
Selling eggs by the dozen will not be illegal under the terms of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament to EU food labelling proposals. Labels will still be able to indicate the number of food items in a pack, whether of eggs, bread rolls or fish fingers.

Labelling by weight
Reports that claim the new rules will not allow both the weight and the quantity to be displayed are also wrong. The new food labelling regulation does not affect existing EU rules on the size of eggs: There are four official sizes of eggs: very large (73g and over), large (63g to 73g), medium (53g to 63g), and small (under 53g) - this will not change.

That statement emerged almost exactly nine hours ago (at time of writing). And yet, in sharp contrast to the three articles about the ban, the Mail hasn't apparently found the time to produce an article containing the very clear denial from the EU.

So will they do the honourable thing and correct the false impression?

Or will they conveniently 'forget' - as they did with the case of the boy who wasn't thrown off a bus for wearing an England shirt - and let their readers continue to believe that the EU really are banning the sale of eggs by the dozen. Even when they know that's simply not true.

UPDATE (Wednesday) - Well, the Mail did publish an article at 5:23am saying 'eggs by the dozen will NOT be banned'. But rather than admit they got it completely wrong, they have tried to save face and claim the u-turn came about in the face of a 'backlash by Britain' - making it seem as if the 'outrage' caused by the Mail on Sunday article changed their minds.

This article hasn't made the front page of today's paper (as the original did) and is also buried half-way down the website homepage - unlike the original which was top story, or close to it, for most of Sunday.

Wow

Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday ran this stunning exposé, unbelievably credited to two journalists:


Yes, they really managed to squeeze 120 words out of a woman wearing her daughter's hat to Ascot.

But the website of the Telegraph - Newspaper of the Year, remember - thought it was a good enough story to repeat:


They won't be winning any prizes for second-hand stories about second-hand hats.

(Hat-tip to Jim Hawkins)

Another Migrationwatch press release gets the churnalism treatment

The appearance of a new Migrationwatch press release is the cause of celebration at certain newspapers, because it means they can produce a story that bashes immigrants without doing any actual journalism.

None of the churnalists writing about Migrationwatch's new figures - about the numbers of visas-leading-to-settlement granted under the new 'points based system' (PBS) - seem to have bothered to make even a cursory check that they're reliable.

Migrationwatch claims Labour's 'Tough' Points Based System Actually Increased Immigration.

The first set of figures they compare shows that the number of 'entry clearances' for skilled and highly skilled workers actually fell by over 23,000 over the period:


The next set of figures is for visa extensions, and this is where it starts to look a little shaky:


Since the PBS was only introduced in June 2008, there's no way there could be any tier 1 or 2 'visa extensions' in 2007. Unlike with the previous set of numbers, Migrationwatch do not find the 2007 'equivalents'.

This leaves a rather large hole in both their figures and their subsequent claims.

How can they realistically, and honestly, suggest the 2009 figures say anything about immigration trends when they fail to provide comparable numbers from previous years?

After all, visa extensions did exist in 2007 and were, in total, higher overall then than in 2009. Going to back to the official figures which Migrationwatch used shows this very clear decline:

• 2007 - 274,020
• 2008 - 267,865
• 2009 - 251,245

Migrationwatch also provide numbers for work permits (which dropped - 44,685 in 2007; 7,290 in 2009) and for dependents (which increased by 5,565).

Overall, going by page 33 of the official stats, the very page Migrationwatch uses, the grand total of entry clearance visas including dependents is down (2,072,430 in 2007 and 1,995,840 in 2009).

Yet in the certain categories they have selected, Migrationwatch have claimed there's been an increase of 20%:


But strip out the 86,000 from the 'visa extensions' - or find and add in the equivalent figures for work-permit holders who gained extensions in 2007 - and that increase looks rather less certain.

In any case, immigration suggests people coming in - certainly in the minds of the hacks who then wrote about these figures. Yet 'visa extensions' clearly suggests that these are people already here.

But that didn't stop the Mail saying:


If that sounds like Migrationwatch's headline, that's not a surprise - Slack's article contains all their press release quotes.

Slack says:

Labour's supposedly tough points-based immigration system actually led to huge increases in foreign workers...cleared to live in Britain.

Except the number of new workers 'cleared to live in Britain' was down.

The Telegraph mindlessly followed too:


But the increase in Migrationwatch's figures includes visa extensions. These are not 'extra migrants...allowed into Britain' and the first figures show the number of foreign workers let in is down.

The Express went with:


As you can see from the opening paragraph, Martyn Brown makes a similar mistake, and goes further in claiming Migrationwatch's figures are about all non-EU migrants.

The BNP, as usual, picked up on Migrationwatch's figures and, having got out a calculator and added up all the big numbers, declared 1.2million immigrants had come in under the PBS in the last three years, despite it being in force for only 18 months.

The problem is the tabloids are obsessed with trying to prove there are too many immigrants coming to the UK. Migrationwatch are too, and so any press release sent to the tabloid churnalists which has an eye-catching headline, a few respectable-looking figures and an anti-immigrant message is grist to the mill.

There's no thought given to questioning the stats, no double checking, no quotes from anyone who may challenge Migrationwatch - because they have no interest in proving them wrong.

(More analysis of Migrationwatch's figures available at Left Foot Forward)

The great spoken issue

The Mail's reaction to 'Bigotgate' was this front page:


'The I-word'.

The article adds that immigration is the:

great unspoken issue of the election.

Their editorial calls it the:

taboo subject of immigration.

This is delusional. But it is an argument that right-wing journalists - who seem more obsessed with immigration than anyone - use repeatedly.

Back in February, for example, Melanie Phillips asked why a (non) story about immigration was being ignored by the newspapers, pretending there was a conspiracy of silence. She had 'missed' it splashed all over the front of the Telegraph, as well as being in the Mail, Express and Sun.

The problem with the immigration debate is not that it is always being silenced - that is patently not true.

The problem is that it is dominated by the right-wing anti-immigration press who spread lies and misinformation to suit their own agenda.

They believe illegal immigrants get free cars and a cat stops a man being deported and it's then accepted as true by their readers.

It was only a few years ago a MORI poll showed Mail and Express readers thought there were three times the number of immigrants in Britain than there actually were.

The Mail editorial says:

Thus has our liberal establishment - and the BBC are the worst offenders - shut down the debate on the most profound change in this country's make-up in its history.

Ah, the BBC would have to blamed somewhere, wouldn't they? And yet during this election, the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme about immigration called Is Britain Full? Made by John Ware, it was so in tune with Mail thinking, the paper gave him room to talk about the issues on 21 April - under the headline Crammed Britain.

Moreover, the two leaders' debates so far both had a question about immigration. Indeed, the first question of the first debate was about immigration. It will come up in the third debate tonight too, apparently.

And here's some of the newspaper front pages from the election campaign:



Aside from the volcanic ash and the rise of the Lib Dems, it's hard to remember another single subject that has had as many front pages over the last few weeks.

And here's some evidence of how 'taboo' the subject is from the Mail's own site. Search for 'immigration' and you get this many results:


Search the Mail website for 'immigration' since 6 April - the date the election was called - until today and you get this many results:


So 105 results in just over three weeks - that's nearly four articles every day mentioning 'immigration'.

How is that an 'unspoken issue'?

(For more on how no one is being allowed to talk about immigration any more, see Angry Mob)