How the PCC doesn't work

A couple of weeks ago, this blog revealed the extraordinary effort needed to make Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail withdraw the obviously incorrect claim most robberies were committed by Eastern Europeans. While you would think it would be easy to correct something so obviously bogus, it was a lengthy process because the Mail decided to ignore the Press Complaints Commission for over a month, and Littlejohn tried to repeat the claim in the clarification.

If you thought that was bad, read on.

The same reader who complained about Littlejohn also contacted the PCC about Carole Malone's claim that immigrants get 'free cars' when they arrive in the Britain. Thankfully, the article has been removed from the News of the World site but if you Google the headline 'I’ll give you a real benefits sob story!' it is still available on elsewhere.

In a column full of frothing anti-immigrant myth-making, Malone spewed:

All you have to do to get everything Britain has to offer is to turn up illegally with some sob story of how your own country is too dangerous or that you're a lesbian who'll be shot if you stay there and Hey Presto, it's like you've won the lottery! And, in effect, they HAVE. Free houses, free cars, free healthcare and free money. Hell, they don't even have to work or speak the language. Even the suggestion they should is seen as racist in Brown's Britain.

It's a dismal and depressing couple of paragraphs. But here's your starter for ten: who is she on about?

'Turning up illegally' implies illegal immigrants. But they wouldn't need a sob story to stay, and certainly don't get any benefits.

The 'sob story' and 'free houses and money' implies asylum seekers, but they don't turn up illegally and aren't allowed to work.

This becomes an important point in the correspondence that followed. But more on that later.

Because of the strict PCC rules on complaints, especially about columns such as Littlejohn's or Malone's, the complainant stuck to one fact: no one gets free cars.

Not only did this violate Clause 1 of the Code of Practice that the:

'Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'

but also ignored the PCC Guidance Note on Reporting on Refugees and Asylum Seekers, which highlights:

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

To their credit, the Deputy Managing Editor of the News of the World responded within a few days. The evasion started immediately:

Ms Malone is a famously trenchant columnist with forthright views and the tenor of her writing makes it clear that she is expressing an opinion.

Stating that people get treated like they have 'won the lottery' - as Malone does - is an opinion. It happens to be totally misleading and overblown (£35 per week is like winning the lottery?), but it is an opinion.

Claiming people get 'free cars' is not an opinion. It's either true or it isn't. And it isn't, so it breaches the Code.

But what was their excuse for the 'free car' claim anyway? Believe it or not, this:

Ms Malone is referring, for example, to the widely accepted and unchallenged reports of the £28,500 Toyota Prius that Omar Bakri Mohammed obtained from Currie Motors with a grant from the Government's Motability scheme.

Yes, really. Note the 'for example' as if this is just one of many they could list. Instead, they point to one example from over four years ago, where someone was granted a car because of a disability after being in the country legally for over a decade.

Clearly that does not justify the claim that someone turns up illegally and 'hey presto' they get a free car.

The paper also tried to explain who Malone was referring to:

Throughout the piece, Ms Malone refers to 'immigrants' and never once to 'asylum seekers'

before going on to explain that she only refers to 'illegal immigrants' in the paragraph before the 'free cars' one.

So the Deputy Managing Editor confirms Malone was referring to illegal immigrants having a sob story in order to stay in the country and as getting free houses, cars, money and healthcare. Clearly, all that is completely wrong. And suggests that neither he, nor Malone, nor the paper have a clue about what terminology they should use. Indeed, he went on to claim:

I believe it would be abundantly clear to any of Ms Malone's readers that this is to demonstrate the vast range of people who might benefit from this country's largesse.

So he does think illegal immigrants get those benefits. And in other words - we can chuck any word describing immigrants around and we don't care if they're right or not. As long as readers know they're all getting benefits and cars, it's job done. It's arrogant and it's stupid.

So to reiterate: Carole Malone and the News of the World think illegal immigrants turn up in the UK needing a sob story that their own country is too dangerous so they can stay and receive free money, houses, cars and healthcare. And these illegal immigrants aren't even made to work for it.

Needless to say the complainant rejected this explanation out of hand, highlighting all the problems it raised.

The response of the News of the World? This:

Perhaps a way forward might be for Mr (...) to write a letter which I would be happy to consider for inclusion in our letters column. While items in our printed letters column are relatively short and to the point, I would also be prepared to consider a somewhat longer version to be published online.

Pathetic. Note it's not even guaranteed for publication, but would be 'considered for inclusion'. And which of the News of the World readers would take note of a short letter from some unknown member of the public rejecting a claim by one the paper's star columnists?

Needless to say, our complainant rejected that out of hand, making it clear that any correction had to come from the paper. With the News of the World not even engaging in discussion on the substantive points, the complainant said there seemed to be little option but for the Commission to adjudicate.

A month passed and the PCC was back in touch. The Commission had met and discussed the issue.

And their decision? Err, they didn't make one.

Whether through cowardice or ignorance, the Commission suggested that a further negotiation begin between paper and complainant to agree the wording of a clarification. The PCC never explained why they avoided adjudicating as the complainant had asked. Are they so desperate to avoid any ruling against a newspaper that they abdicate all responsibility now?

So the PCC got a wording from the paper for consideration:

A comment piece of 26 July about immigration issues suggested that those arriving in the UK from abroad generally received “free cars”. We emphasise this was a broad comment and fully accept that this will generally not occur.

Notice the very same tactic as the original Littlejohn wording - try to repeat the claim while pretending to withdraw it. By saying it will not 'generally occur' suggests it may occur, in some cases. On top of that, they didn't even want to name the writer who made the claim.

It was a feeble effort but the PCC added:

such a proposal...would appear to fall in line with the Commission’s general view on the matter

In other words: take it or you get nothing. Our complainant rejected it anyway and suggested the following:

In Carole Malone's column of 26 July, she claimed illegal immigrants receive 'free cars' among other benefits. We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive any such benefits and apologise for the error.

This was never going to be accepted by the paper - claiming illegal immigrants get benefits is a tabloid staple - but it was worth a try, eventhough it didn't cover asylum seekers and immigrants generally.

The paper responded, and this wording was forwarded by the PCC:

On July 26, our columnist Carole Malone claimed illegal immigrants receive 'free cars' among other benefits. We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive such a benefit and regret the error.

Now the paper was trying to say although illegal immigrants don't get cars, they do get other benefits. The hair-tearing was increasing. The complainant rejected that wording, and also suggested that rather than 'regretting' the error they should be apologising for such a damaging and potentially inflammatory lie.

On top of that, he wondered why the original article had not been removed from the paper's website, as is normal when a complaint is ongoing. Only then did the paper take Malone's stupid column down and offered this wording:

On July 26, our columnist Carole Malone claimed illegal immigrants receive 'free cars'. We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive such a benefit and apologise for the error.

This corrected some of the problems with the previous wording, but others remained. If the News of the World admits that the 'free cars' bit referred to 'illegal immigrants' then the free house, money and healthcare did as well. So why wouldn't it be willing to correct those claims too?

The PCC note accompanying the latest News of the World offer added:

the Commission would consider this to be sufficient under the Code.

This left the complainant in a hopeless position. To accept it would mean something inadequate would be published. To reject it would almost certainly mean that nothing would be published. The Commission would have ruled that 'sufficient' remedy had been offered and so would probably have found against the complaint.

The complainant asked the PCC if they would push the paper to clarify the point about other benefits. The PCC confirmed they wouldn't:

The point about “free cars” is demonstrably untrue and, as such, the newspaper is willing to correct the point and offer an apology. It has also removed the article from its website following your request. Personally – and the Commission has already considered the matter initially – I think that this would be seen to be enough.

The PCC added:

I think that the problem relates to the manner in which the article was written, as it is not entirely clear to whom the reference in question refers.

So eventhough the PCC admits the terminology used is dreadful, they were basically saying: this is the best you will get.

The complainant was essentially cornered by the paper and the PCC. On top of that, after two months of wrangling, he was just fed up and disillusioned with the whole process - especially after having to deal with the Mail complaint too.

So our reader agreed to the wording. He asked that it appear on the same page as the next Carole Malone column. The paper refused, instead offering to place it in an above-the-fold box on page 19 (where the original column appeared) or earlier. The reason was that as the apology:

carries the weight of the News of the World as a whole

it wasn't appropriate to be on her page. You know, where people who might have read the original claim might see it. But being fed up and just wanting it over, the complainant agreed.

Although the paper has not published it on their website, as they should have, it appears on page 18 of today's edition. In a very small box. Hardly noticeable. Far more noticeable, is Carole Malone's latest column, which is another rant about how immigrants are getting everything, 'British people' aren't and that is why the BNP succeed.

Rather, she should be thinking the BNP succeed when the public believe there are no border controls and that immigrants get priority in health care and social housing because she, like most the tabloid media, keeps telling them it's true. Eventhough it isn't.

But back to the free cars, and this is not the way a complaints system should work. The News of the World and the PCC both knew that the claims made by Malone in that paragraph were bullshit but made it as hard as possible for the complainant to get any remedy. The process ground on for two months, with the paper having to have a vaguely suitable wording wrung out of it. And the PCC let them get away with it, by not helping the complainant push the paper for a entirely justified fuller correction.

By appearing to be on the side of the paper - as it so often appears - the PCC shows it is not doing the job a newspaper regulator should be doing. The press would be the first to complain if any other institution regulated itself. So why is it different? Other regulators - such Ofcom - are firmer, and can issue fines. Why can't the PCC?

These two complaints by our intrepid reader do raise another question, as highlighted by 5CC. What exactly is the PCC policy on third-party complaints?

In neither of these cases was the issue raised by either paper or PCC. Yet when the complaints started to flood in about the Jan Moir hate-fest, the PCC's initial reaction was to dismiss them as third-party complaints. As a rule, they say they will only deal with a complaint if the person who is the subject of the article is the one who complains.

Perhaps the Gately family were regarded as 'first-party' in that case. In these articles, aimed generically at Eastern Europeans and illegal immigrants, there was no 'first-party'. Yet in the past, this has meant the PCC would reject such complaints too.

It does make it all look rather arbitrary and like the PCC is just too cosy to the print media. Hardly surprising when there are newspaper and magazine editors all over the Commission's committees.

When everything is so weighted against the complainant, no wonder so many people don't bother complaining, and no wonder the press continue to get away with printing so much rubbish.

Amanda Platell and her rubbish column

Amanda Platell. Sigh.

Guess which new myth about immigration she repeats in her column today?

That's right. It's that bloody cat again:

Only this week a court ruled that an illegal immigrant should not be deported as it would breach his human right to a family because he and his girlfriend now had a cat together. Such cases make a mockery of the British courts.

No, Amanda - such cases make a mockery of journalists who can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research.

So that's three times this week that claim has been made in the Mail - once with the story, then with Littlejohn and now her. Given the lawyer involved has made it clear it's not true, why keep repeating it? Either it's a deliberate attempt to lie about immigration, or they're all a bit thick.

Probably both. But maybe it's more to do with laziness than stupidity. After all, if Amanda was really thick, she'd think 19 was a higher number than 24.

She does? Oh yes:

Commons Leader Harriet Harman has rewarded Parliament with the longest Christmas break since records began.

This year's Christmas break for MPs is 19 days. Last year it was 24 days. So not even the longest break since last year.

Still at least the former Conservative Party advisor wouldn't just indulge in partisan political points. Would she?

'Parliament is not yet fit for the 21st century,' thunders the Prime Minister. Why not? Because we don't have enough 'lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates'.

So that's where it all went wrong then, Gordon. Not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the banking collapse, the failing schools or corrupt MPs, but the sexual diversity quotas in Westminster.

What planet is he on?

Oh, she would. Maybe it's a planet where 24 days is longer than 19 days? But that's a fairly twisted interpretation and Brown never claimed that was 'where it all went wrong' or anything like it. More to the point, as Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all said much the same things about the need for more MPs who are not white men, why pick on him alone? Cameron said:

under-representation of women and ethnic minorities was a 'real problem for Parliament and it's been an even greater problem for my party'.

And the Liberal Democrat leader said:

'Our Parliament pretends to represent modern Britain but it doesn't have modern Britain in it.'

Still, while she's having petty partisan pops at political folk she doesn't like, she might as well needlessly attack the Obamas again. A couple of weeks ago she curiously referred to Barack as having:

about as much charisma as a packet of cheese and onion crisps.

Barack Obama has been accused of many things but a lack of charisma? Still, she'd know all about politicians with charisma, having worked for, er, William Hague.

Today, it's Michelle she doesn't like. Why? Because she has done some hula-hooping. How dare she!

Am I the only one who, on seeing the picture of Michelle Obama swinging a hula-hoop around her hips, accompanied by a quote from the President saying 'My wife is the best hulahooper I know', felt more than a little nauseous?

Err, yes, you are.

She's supposed to be the First Lady, for heaven's sake, not a children's TV presenter.

Yes. How dare Michelle have a little bit of fun at a Healthy Kids Fair - designed to encourage kids to exercise more and eat better. And she did manage 142 hoops which, at a guess, is more than green-eyed Amanda can manage.

She also drips her bile on Alesha Dixon, who she infamously called a 'chocolate labrador', and who she still wants sacked from Strictly Come Dancing. After the ridiculous media over-reaction against Dixon following her first appearance as a judge on the show, the papers have hardly said a word. Not Amanda:

If a ratings-boost is required by the BBC, the solution is simple - bring Arlene back, and put Alesha 'Ditto' Dixon back on the dancefloor where she belongs.

Anyone who saw Arlene Phillips' dismal performance on Have I Got News For You might well wonder what the fuss is about. She spoke about twice during the broadcast programme, a clear indication her contributions were hilariously unmissable. Or not.

Still, hardly a surprise that Amanda doesn't know anything about popular culture either. Because in her desperation to attack yet another more successful (and, ahem, younger) woman she turns her attention to Nicole Kidman, who spoke out about violence against women in films a few days ago. Platell sniffs that complaining about women being portrayed as 'weak sex objects' would be:

marginally more credible if Kidman hadn't taken millions of dollars for playing a succession of just such parts.

Roles such as playing a high-class hooker in Moulin Rouge, a robotic spouse in Stepford Wives, a sexually confused wife in Eyes Wide Shut, a mailorder bride in Birthday Girl and a young tart on stage in The Blue Room.

Hmm. Well, that wasn't a 'succession of parts' as there were other films in-between those ones. And in Stepford Wives she was (spoiler!) never transformed into a robotic wife, but played along to uncover the mystery. In The Blue Room she played five different roles, including a 'young tart', but neither that nor the characters in Birthday Girl and Eyes Wide Shut were exactly 'weak'. In Moulin Rogue she was only weak in the sense she was dying.

And she certainly wouldn't have taken 'million of dollars' appearing on stage. But Amanda ends:

Is Nicole really turning her back on sexist, exploitative roles? Or, now she's 42, have they turned their back on her?

Having failed to make her case, she comes to a catty conclusion. She's too old and passed it at 42 to be sexy! And yet she's ten years younger than Amanda.

Isn't it time the media turned it's back on Amanda? Not because of her age, but because she writes badly researched, superficial nonsense.

Mail doesn't want violent criminals deported to 'where they came from' shock

The Mail's latest attempt to blame violent films, video games and Facebook for anything and everything comes in the story Vietnam veteran killed boss in Reservoir Dogs-style attack after slipping into UK despite string of convictions.

As he's 53, it's doubtful he was a Vietnam vet as the last US combat troops left 37 years ago, when he was around 16.

But Reservoir Dogs? Did he dress in white shirt with black suit and tie and chop someone's ear off while singing early 70s pop songs? Did he change his name to a colour and shoot someone during a diamond heist?

Well, no:

Russell Carter, 53, held the men at gunpoint in their office and forced them to transfer cash to his bank account.

He tied up three of the hostages, then took company director Kingsley Monk into another room where he brutally attacked him with a metal pipe before strangling him with his own tie.

OK, so one hostage was tied up in Reservoir Dogs, but other than that, none of that happened in the film. But wait:

In a scene recalling Quentin Tarantino's 1992 film Reservoir Dogs, Carter then drenched the remaining hostages in petrol, spread more around the office and set it alight before fleeing.

Of course, while one hostage was doused in petrol, no one was actually set on fire in an office in the film.

The Sun also refers to it as a:

Reservoir Dogs style slaughter

eventhough the one man who died was killed in ways which are nowhere to be seen in the film.

So why try and blame the film, rather than the fact that Carter was a nasty, violent man who:

was convicted of armed robbery in California in 1979 and again in 1985 when he was jailed for 20 years.

California? So he was one of those violent foreigners who come to this country to commit their crimes?

Well, not really. He was born in Britain and held dual citizenship.

Imagine the Daily Mail, in America, in 1985. After Carter's second conviction for armed robbery they would be demanding this person be deported 'back to where he came from'. Britain.

And yet, Carter's crime is the fault of...America:

It emerged that British-born Carter had a record of armed violence in the U.S. but immigration officials were not warned when he returned to this country ten years ago.

The comments include:

And another loony is let into Britain
- Despair, Kent, 23/10/2009 14:59

And:

Maybe Nick Griffin has a point,keep importing criminal scum like this and what do you expect??
- Tel em straight, Zefat Israel, 23/10/2009 16:57

Importing? He's British-born! And then:

Send him back to USA let him serve his sentence there. Why the hell should we keep him?
- Richard, Torrevieja, Spain, 23/10/2009 17:01

Which contains an interesting use of the word 'we' for someone living in Spain.

And over at The Sun:

Let him serve it back in the States.
posted by: VigilanteMan

Hmm. So whereas the Mail and Sun and their readers are all too keen to demand the deportation of criminals back to their country of origin, if they are British, they shouldn't return to Britain. To quote one Mail comment:

What he did was horrific and absolutely the US authorities should have informed the UK police of any criminal activitites or time served in prison, but you can't argue that he shouldn't have been allowed back to the UK and then argue in the same breath that immigrant criminals should be deported.
- C Martin, Auckland, New Zealand, 24/10/2009 2:14

Quite right.

Diana again (sorry)

Today's Express screams: Diana: New Sensation.

Really? A sensation? A new sensation?

Is she alive?

No. Still dead, apparently.

So, sigh, what is it this time?

Apparently, a civil court in Paris has ruled that there were:

'unnecessary delays' in investigating a mix-up over controversial blood tests.

Accordingly, the Court of Grand Instance fined the French Republic £5,000 to be paid to Mohammed Al Fayed (he had wanted one million). The Express still quotes him favourably:

'It is a major step towards uncovering the truth about what really happened that night. I am delighted that the French court has recognised that I have been denied justice.'

They didn't recognise any such thing, but the Express doesn't both to challenge that statement. But ummm haven't we been through all this before - several times over? Why can't the Express just leave this alone?

Richard Palmer and Peter Allen's story begins:

Senior French officials who investigated Princess Diana’s death were blamed for a cover-up yesterday in a dramatic court ruling which condemned them for failing to check whether vital evidence was forged.

Ah - a 'cover-up'. That again. Except, it was more of a cock-up than 'cover-up' and the article contains a quote that proves they weren't blamed for the latter:

In their ruling, published yesterday, the French judges maintained that, although there had been 'formal mistakes', they 'had no long-term repercussions on the revealing of the truth'.

Still, at least sticking nonsense about Diana on the front page means we are spared the BNP slogans or disgraceful scaremongering about Muslims. At least Diana conspiracies are harmless lying in comparison.

Corrections round up

The Sun - Tabloid Lies reveals the newspaper's latest admission of error over an 'Islamic terrorist' story. The apology to Abdul Muneem Patel reads:

On 29 March and 1 April last year we reported that Mr Patel was an evil terrorist who had been jailed for his part in a transatlantic jet terror plot.

While he had been convicted under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act of possessing material that might be useful to terrorists, the court accepted that he unwittingly held documents for a friend of his father.

Mr Patel has never had any involvement with terrorism acts.

We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to him.

'Happy to set the record straight'? Is that why it has taken eighteen months for the apology to appear?

Septicisle wrote about the original article and exposed its faults when it appeared. So why did it take the PCC and Sun so long to realise the problems?

Elsewhere, the PCC have formerly noted the resolution of the case against the News of the World and the Mail from Fabio Capello and his wife:

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper accepted that internal procedures - warning of Mr Capello's concerns - had failed and that the pictures were published in error. It apologised to the Capellos, gave undertakings for the future, and - at the request of the Capellos - made a substantial donation to the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation.

On a less serious note, this clarification from The Guardian:

Errors appeared in an interview with Matthew Slotover and Amanda Sharp, who own Frieze magazine and the events company that stages the Frieze art fair.

In connection with part of the piece that quoted them talking about founding the contemporary art magazine, it has been pointed out to us that the masthead of the first edition of Frieze in 1991 listed the founding editors as the artist Tom Gidley and Matthew Slotover, and Amanda Sharp as advertising and PR.

Elsewhere in our article, the 2005 figure of £2.5m should have been given as the art fair’s turnover – fees from visitors and exhibitors – not as its profit; the height of its tent walls should have been given as 12ft not 12m. Amanda Sharp’s surname sometimes appeared wrongly in the piece as Smart (All the fun of the fair, 3 October, page 34).

But apart from that, the article was entirely reliable.

Recommended reading

Anton has done an excellent post which suggests the tabloids may just be a little hypocritical in criticising the BNP while all-too-frequently publishing front pages which push the same anti-immigrant, anti-Islam agenda as that party.

Anton has done two other posts on immigration, one about tabloid lies, one about the 70 million population figure. 5CC has also posted on the latter.

Jan Moir makes her position clear - she's an unrepentant bigot

So after a week of prevarication, Jan Moir has used her (advertising free) column today to clarify what she wrote about Stephen Gately last week.

Well, not clarify, exactly. Repeat all the same baseless, innuendo-heavy stuff for a second time. Claim she was entirely misrepresented, the victim of an orchestrated campaign (by who?) and complained about by people who hadn't read the article (proof?).

One of the most dismal aspects of this piece is the apology she gives to the Gately family:

I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.

Right, so she's not sorry for what she actually said, just when she said it. Charming. She just doesn't get it.

To everyone else, there is no apology. She only says:

I regret any affront caused.

In other words: stuff you. Because if she really regretted causing affront, she wouldn't repeat many of the same allegations for a second time. She writes:

if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances.

Circumstances of course which Moir didn't really know, apart from some newspaper reports. Toxicology results which she didn't know either. But rather than wait, she decided she knew best - and clearly she still does. Better than the coroner, in fact. Sadly she didn't explain how the drugs she seems to know he took caused the fluid on his lungs which killed him.

She then claims she never said something which she did say:

I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live.

Odd, given she said this:

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

Now assuming she picked the example of George Michael because of his antics in public toilets, then she is saying not everyone is like him in 'many cases'. Not most.

She fails to clarify why the death of Kevin McGee was in any way relevant to Gately. Probably because she knows it isn't. She pretends that her vile observation that Gately's death:

strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships

was that:

there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages.

But this was a myth she seemed to invent for her column. Whoever said that no civil partnership would ever end in separation? Who claimed there were never going to be unhappy civil partners?

Indeed, when she writes:

If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article

it's a blatant lie. She would not have written about the myth of happy-ever-after heterosexual marriage. She would not have mentioned whoever she thinks the straight version of George Michale might be, or suggested they were representative. She wouldn't have referred to 'straight activists'. And she almost certainly wouldn't have referred to a:

very different and more dangerous lifestyle.

She lies:

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality.

And:

Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.

Well, the article last week was poisonous, and if she really thinks people will believe her saying his sexuality had nothing to do with it, she's totally deluded.

She writes:

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain.

Followed by:

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.

And:

To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly

And:

I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged?

All of which sounds a lot like her complaining.

And a 'hysterical overreaction'? Clearly she's so repentant she's calling everyone who was offended 'hysterical'. Not in the least like the Mail-orchestrated Sachsgate affair, of course, in which Moir played her miserable role.

That applies to her point about people 'determined to be outraged'. The default position of the Daily Mail is to be 'determined to be outraged' day in, day out.

The fact is, people saw bigotry and social intolerance because it did exist in her sorry little rant.

And there are other contradictions. Last week she described Gately as a:

founder member of Ireland's first boy band, he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk...popular but largely decorous.

Whereas this week, he was:

a talented young man

And of her claim that there was 'nothing natural' about his death, she says:

My assertion that there was 'nothing natural' about Stephen's death has been wildly misinterpreted.

What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved.

When any 33-year old dies suddenly, a coroner would almost certainly be involved. This does not make it 'not natural', nor does it support her original claim.

And her attempts to explain 'nothing natural' is just bizarre. Here's what she said:

Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this.

In her original response, she backtracked, saying:

Anyone can die at anytime of anything

But now she seems to be suggesting they can't, again.

She claims she was showered with support too:

I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

Really? So homophobic Mail readers sent supportive emails. What a surprise. But as there were over 25,000 complaints, that's a lot of emails to receive if she is to justify the claim it wasn't one sided. How many thousands was it? Even the comments on the Mail website were hugely against her. That's how 'silent' they were.

Oh, and is she sure all those 'thousands' of supporters read the article? Because she repeats her claim that her piece was:

unread by many who complained.

Can she provide the slightest evidence for this? How can she possibly know that they didn't read it? What proof does she have?

It's also an odd claim for someone who spoke out about the BBC Sachsgate affair, where the tens of thousands of people who did complain only did so after reading about it in the Mail, not having heard the radio show live. Moir included. So add hypocrite to all the other charges.

She also tries to re-state her view that this was all:

an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own.

In fact, as she isn't on Twitter, she wouldn't have a clue. What was noticeable was watching the sheer number of people taking an entirely natural reaction against her column. After having read it.

Who does she think is the conductor of this orchestra? What agenda does she think is behind it? Naturally, she doesn't explain. And, of course, she's not complaining about it.

And then she admits:

I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances.

Oh right. So a cynical, orchestrated campaign by non-readers and mischievous gay activists was also heartfelt and personal grievances. Last week they were 'mischievous', now they are 'heartfelt'? What is she on about? Have the Mail executives been adding bits to try and take the heat off? Because it hasn't worked.

Towards the end she sets up a straw man to knock down:

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.

Who has suggested you can't question? She entirely misses the point of what people found so offensive.

And frankly, if you have to spend 890 words explaining what you really meant in a 917 word article, you clearly ain't much of a writer anyway.

No doubt the Mail - and Moir - will expect this to be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, they will be wrong. This is not an apology, but someone who is in a hole and continuing to dig. There is nothing in here that corrects the egregious errors of judgement in her homophobic rant last week.

In fact, by playing the victim, stating she has been entirely misunderstood (yes, over 25,000 people all misinterpreted the words in the same way), saying the complainers haven't read what she wrote and then repeating claims that there was something untoward about Gately's death means this will rumble on.

Jan Moir: Twitter trending topic, for a second consecutive Friday.

Mail hypocrisy over Moir continues

Early this morning on the Daily Mail website homepage there were three stories which were less than favourable to the BBC:

No-one's watching their new drama!

They're all on cocaine!

Anton has made his dance partner cry again!

Curiously, the latter has disappeared from the site. Headlined 'Anton Du Beke makes dance partner Laila Rouass weep in another bust-up' and still visible on Google, you can assume it has been removed because it was completely inaccurate.

Then came news that the Question Time audience would contain BNP members to cheer on their leader.

The day before, they focused on The X Factor 'trouncing' Strictly Come Dancing in the viewing figures. And on Frankie Boyle's Mock the Week joke about the Queen, which the Mail approvingly calls 'grossly offensive' before repeating it, just so readers can see how gross and offensive it is.

And on Monday it claimed the BBC were altering Humpty Dumpty to make it 'politically correct', explained Conservative Party plans for the 'out of touch' organisation and revealed 'Two jobs and a pension for the BBC's £500,000 executive Alan Yentob'.

Nine critical articles in three days. Anybody would think the Mail was trying to divert attention to another media outlet so it could quietly slip out of the spotlight.

Yesterday, Five Chinese Crackers asked: Whatever happened to 'SACK THEM!' which was the Mail's front page demand to the BBC to fire Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross over the Sachsgate affair.

At various times the Mail accused the BBC of a 'week of prevarication', being 'painfully slow' to react and criticising the organisation because 'nobody takes responsibility'.

The sub-head of the 'Sack Them' front page talked of an:

unprecendented backlash.

Given the Jan Moir article has received more complaints than any other (25,000 and counting), it's reasonable to say the Mail has suffered an 'unprecedented backlash' too.

So has anyone at the Mail taken responsibility after five days? Has anyone apologised? Has anyone resigned or been sacked? Has the Mail said anything at all?

Apart from Jan Moir's insult to injury 'reponse' last Friday the answers are: no, no, no and no.

In any other organisation, employees caught behaving so revoltingly would be lucky to keep their jobs.

That was the Mail. In an editorial. Talking about Brand and Ross. Now they are on the defensive, the sheer hypocrisy of their stance matches the sheer nastiness of the Moir article.

And what of their columnists? Suzanne Moore and Janet Street-Porter had their say, rightfully attacking Moir.

But what about Allison Pearson, who wrote at great length about how awful Ross and Brand were, including repeating all their rudest jokes, just so readers could be shocked?

Not one mention of it today in the entire column. She does a piece about 'moral cowardice', but ironically, it's on a different subject.

More interested in the X Factor, she says Cheryl Cole:

would never have made it into the live final of The X Factor

somehow forgetting she made it to - and won - the live final of Popstars: The Rivals.

What about Stephen Glover? He also wrote plenty about Sachsgate, criticising the BBC for having to have an apology 'wrung' out of it.

Yesterday, in his weekly column in the Independent Media Section, he didn't criticise the Mail for not apologising. In fact, he forgot to mention it at all. For a media commentator to neglect one of the biggest media stories of the year suggests he's not much good at his job.

So what about Littlejohn? He talked of last year's events as a:

stunning victory for common decency over the self-appointed, self-obsessed, metropolitan narcissists who control so much of our public life.

Yesterday, he was bizarrely quiet. There was none of the spluttering outrage he aimed at the BBC over the Sachsgate affair. Whereas then he complained that Ross and Brand had been allowed to:

bully and ridicule an old man and his granddaughter in the name of 'entertainment'

bullying and ridiculing a recently dead man and his mother in the name of entertainment is, apparently, fine.

All he said was:

Forgive me, I know I really should get out more, but who is Stephen Gately?

Hilarious. Of course, that line means he can mention it without actually having to talk about it.

So is the Mail succeeding in slipping out of the spotlight? It seems they are being allowed to. Outside of the Guardian, there is very little reporting from other newspapers on the subject. The Mail ran four consecutive front pages on Sachsgate. This has had nothing like the same coverage. Is it the fact they all know where the bodies are buried and are reluctant to criticise other newspapers? There but for the grace of God etc.

We wait for Friday, to see if Jan Moir's column appears and what she says if it does. She may (have been told to) come over all contrite and apologetic so as to head off any possible censure from the PCC (eventhough that scares no one - despite what editors say to the contrary).

The broadcast regulator Ofcom can censure on the basis of offence; the PCC can not. The newspapers can be as offensive as they like, but if they are 'within' the Code they get away with it. Just ask Littlejohn, Malone or McKinstry.

And Ofcom can fine broadcasters for transgressions. The PCC can not.

Mail Editor Paul Dacre is Chair of the Editor's Code Committee, which reviews and revives the Code of Conduct policed by the PCC.

After the payments to the parents of Madeleine McCann by the Express and Star, Express Editor Peter Hill was replaced on the PCC. Some may wonder how an Editor as atrocious and dishonest as Hill could ever have been on the PCC in the first place. But there was an example of a huge failing by an editor, which resulted in the PCC replacing him.

It seems extraordinary that the man ultimately responsible for the most complained newspaper article ever can possibly imagine he can continue to be the Chair of the Code Committee. As their website points out:

The guiding principle has been that the Code should be observed not only to the letter, but in the full spirit.

Even if the PCC find the Moir didn't break the letter of the Code, which wouldn't be a big surprise, was it within the spirit?

The Codebook also explains about the Code:

It should not be abused...by editors trying to tiptoe around the rules

In his foreward to the Codebook, which explains how the Code works, Dacre states:

Sometimes we get it wrong...Where there are legitimate public concerns, we must respond to them.

Indeed. So when is he, and the Mail, going to respond to the Moir article? You know, like they demanded the BBC do over Sachsgate...

Leo McKinstry and the BNP

At the start of August, Leo McKinstry wrote in the Express about how all Britain's problems are caused by immigration.

Yesterday Leo McKinstry wrote in the Express about how all Britain's problems are caused by immigration.

Then it was: Labour's lies have brought the UK to ruin - Labour's rhetoric on immigration is a colossal exercise in deceit.

Yesterday it was: Labour's biggest lie of all is about mass immigration.

This cost-cutting at the Express really is getting out of hand...

Then, without any shred of irony, he begins his latest with this:

Josef Goebbels, the sinister chief of Nazi propaganda, wrote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"...

Those words apply exactly to the Government’s rhetoric on immigration.

Yes, repeating lies so people begin to believe it. Not that the Express or McKinstry would ever repeatedly use dishonest rhetoric about immigration. Or Muslims. Or political correctness. Or Diana being 'murdered'.

And so begins yet another anti-immigration rant:

As our country sinks deeper into the mire of recession, despair and social dislocation, the full extent of [government] lies on immigration has been exposed.

And:

The dramatic rise in immigration has coincided with the deepest recession since the Thirties.

As the numbers continue to flood in, unemployment rises and living standards fall.

That's funny - the dramatic rise in the use of, say, Twitter has coincided with the deepest recession since the Thirties. Shall we blame that too? Does it have nothing to do with the bank system then? Or the

grotesque mismanagement of public finances

which McKinstry blamed for the economic crisis back in April.

He continues:

the mass arrival of foreigners has imposed an intolerable strain on public services, especially the NHS, social security, housing and education, as well as creating a huge burden for the taxpayer, costing more than £30billion a year.

It's not totally clear what that £30billion refers to, it's not clear he knows either, but after suggesting immigrants are costing the taxpayer that much (by which he means white British people, as 'foreigners' don't appear to be taxpayers), he doesn't have to. The damage is done.

There are other outright lies. He talks about:

rising crime and ethnic tension

as if the latter is the fault of immigrants, rather than, say, racist newspapers which carry BNP slogans on their front page.

He should take a look at last night's Panorama too.

And 'rising crime'? The last British Crime Survey said the crime rate was stable and recorded crime was down 5%.

With no apparent logic at all he also states:

no fewer than 733,000 National Insurance numbers were handed out to newly arrived foreigners, making a mockery of Government claims that net migration is on the decline.

It's hard to see how those two things are related, or how one disproves the other. But he's wrong. As his own paper stated when the last immigration figures were released:

Overall, 118,000 more people arrived in Britain than left, the lowest net immigration figure since the EU expanded in 2004.

So, er, net migration is on the decline then.

McKinstry also uses the term

bogus refugees

eventhough it is meaningless. What is a 'bogus refugee'?

Towards the end he says:

the Labour lie machine goes on remorselessly, bullying us into “celebrating” our nation’s own demise.

It's hard to know exactly how McKinstry thinks the nation is in 'demise' or indeed how this is being 'celebrated'. Apart from frothing, fact-lite soundbites, what evidence does he have or examples does he give? None. It appears as if any change to the population or the work-force is, to him, ruining the country.

Therefore, here's a quote from the BNP on immigration:

The current open-door policy and unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration is leading to higher crime rates, demand for more housing (driving prices out of the reach of young people), severe extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income taxes, lower wages, higher unemployment, loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a more atomised society.

And here's a paragraph assembled from quotes in McKinstry's column:

Immigrants 'continue to flood in' as the 'Government has lost all grip on our borders'. This is leading to 'rising crime' and has 'imposed an intolerable strain on public services, especially the NHS, social security, housing and education'. 'Unemployment rises and living standards fall' and there is a 'huge burden for the taxpayer'. We see a 'transformation in our society' with 'ethnic tension' and 'recession, despair and social dislocation'. 'Britain has become a place of apprehension, fear and suspicion.'

The differences are minimal. And the conclusion both want you to reach is this: immigrants are to blame for everything that is wrong with Britain.

In a week when the BNP will probably get more publicity than at any time before, McKinstry doesn't use his column to attack the nasty, racist party, preferring instead to use the platform he has to peddle a load of anti-immigration myths that only help that party get its message out.

It's the manure that helps the BNP grow.

The unsavoury Richard Littlejohn

The main part of Richard Littlejohn's Tuesday 20 October column is an attack on the BNP. He spends part of it recalling the time he had a show on Sky News (yes, really) and of meeting various BNP people.

He says:

I put it to [Nick] Griffin that what set the BNP apart was the large elephant not in the manifesto, namely that it is the 'Wogs Out' party.

Yes, one of those odious 'Wogs Out' types. Not like Littlejohn at all, who in his dishonest look at the Bolivian immigrant who was(n't) saved from deportation by his cat story writes:

If the couple are determined to have a family life, they can have one in Bolivia.

'Wogs Out' indeed.

He moves on to talk about the time in 2004 that he 'moderated' a discussion between a BNP supporter and the Independent's Johann Hari:

The researchers had also invited an excitable teenage 'cultural commentator' from one of the unpopular papers by way of balance.

He managed to work himself up into such an hysterical, nasal lather of sweaty indignation - squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance - that he succeeded only in making the BNP man seem reasonable.

Of course, referring to him as an 'excitable teenager' is a way of belittling and patronising him so he doesn't have to admit the fact that Hari utterly humiliated him. He showed him to be a complete liar about the benefits asylum seekers get (Littlejohn wrote £117 per week, rather than £33 they actually recieved) and Littlejohn had absolutely nothing to say in return.

Enjoy - and savour it - here.

Hari's point was that the constant lies and exaggerations spread by Littlejohn (and others) about immigrants and Muslims gives the BNP a platform on which to build. The way Mail stories on these subjects appear on the BNP website within hours of being published by newspapers - including the cat story - is clear evidence of that.

But look again at way Littlejohn describes Hari.

'Squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance'. That is the infamous scene where Beatty's character is raped by another man.

And it is surely no accident that Littlejohn uses that reference solely because Hari is gay.

In a Tweet a few days ago, Hari revealed:

The BNP on their website call me "the notorious fat homosexual Johann Hari". I am considering changing my name to this by deed poll.

Attacking Hari and pointlessly raising his sexuality - clearly Littlejohn is appalled by the BNP.

Coming so soon after the infamous Jan Moir article, the Mail should be careful about insidious little homophobic remarks from their columnists. It would seem to raise similiar problems under Clause 12 of the PCC code, which deals with:

prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's...sexual orientation

and

Details of an individual's...sexual orientation...must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Not only that but he sounds like the school bully, pathetically settling old scores now he has thought of a response five years later.

And, on the subject of Moir, Littlejohn is bizarrely quiet. There's none of the spluttering outrage he aimed at the BBC over the Sachsgate affair. Whereas then he complained that Ross and Brand had been allowed to:

bully and ridicule an old man and his granddaughter in the name of 'entertainment'

bullying and ridiculing a recently dead man and his mother in the name of entertainment is, apparently, fine.

All he says is:

Forgive me, I know I really should get out more, but who is Stephen Gately?

Hilarious. The man is a fool.

(Hat-tip to Killer Whale at the Mailwatch Forum for the Wogs Out comparison)

Littlejohn lies about a cat (to go with the two recent lies about dogs)

As predicted earlier today in a blog post about the nonsensical 'cat saves immigrant from deportation' story, Richard Littlejohn has included it in his column tomorrow.

He has lied twice about dogs recently, so why not lie about a cat too?

The story as presented by the Sunday Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and Star (and BNP) is not accurate, but that has never stopped Littlejohn before. He writes:

A Bolivian man living illegally in Britain has won his appeal against deportation on the grounds that he has a cat.

Well, it wasn't on those grounds at all. But never let the facts get in the way of a good anti-immigrant rant, eh?

Littlejohn even includes the scaremongering - and entirely irrelevant - bit from the Sunday Telegraph article that implies all immigrants are up to no good:

The case comes in a week in which the same court refused to deport 50 foreign criminals, including killers and sex offenders, because it might infringe their human rights.

Indeed, the whole piece is like a lazy copy-and-paste job from the Sunday Telegraph. As dreadful as Jan Moir's article was, Littlejohn churns out the same fact-free intolerant drivel twice a week. When will we get such a backlash against him?

He states:

Surely if joint ownership of a cat has to be taken into consideration, his application was bereft of all other merit.

And likewise, if the cat was 'immaterial' - as it was - then the case wasn't bereft of all other merit. And then there is no story. The Mail itself included the fact there were many other details, but Littlejohn conveniently ignores that.

But it's worth noting a comment left in response to this blog's take on the story from Barry O'Leary, the lawyer who represented the Bolivian man in the case. Here is what he has written:

Dear Tabloid Watch,

Thank you for your comments. You have made me feel sane in a day when insanity has ruled.

I am the lawyer quoted in this article. I was contacted by the Sunday Telegraph last week who had found this case on the Immigration Tribunal website. I explained clearly that the cat was irrelevant and, learning from experience, followed up with written comments as to why the case was won.

The Home Office conceded this case - they were not 'aghast', they accepted they had not applied their own policy and the cat was immaterial. As you have shown, the Telegraph begrudgingly explained this in the article but added a completely misleading headline. Of course, it was then picked up by all and reportedly completely inaccurately.

The sad fact is that it is now on the BNP website and people will believe it.

Where do I go from here? I agreed to an interview with a national radio station to try to get the message out but they lost interest when I explained the facts. I called Damian Green's office. they will 'send me a letter'.

The Telegraph were unfair but accurate on my quotes. Other sites have made up quotes.

I have been here many times as I have being doing immigration law for a long time but still do not have the answer to how to deal with this. Let it die a natural death? What do others suggest?

Once again, thank you reading what I said fully. I was starting to wonder if I had said something completely different.

Barry O'Leary

It is impossible not to be sympathetic that when he tells the media the cat was immaterial, he finds every article that follows focusing on it. And that now includes Littlejohn's.

Now that it has done the rounds it is probably too late to undo the damage. And we have seen how difficult it is to get any joy from the Press Complaints Commission. Perhaps it would be worth contacting them anyway. It might be possible to get a clarification from Littlejohn, although it will be hard work.

The cat was immaterial, the papers all say it was central. On that basis, some of the online articles may get removed and if Mr O'Leary can get the papers to mark their archives it may be able to stop the story being repeated in the future.

Unfortunately, for the BNP, Stormfront and other racist website/forums where this story has appeared, it is now accepted as 'fact'.

And that is why the papers should think far more carefully about the way the present such stories. Starting with someone that might seem obvious but clearly isn't when there is another agenda: is this true?

Mail returns to attacking immigrants and Muslims

The Daily Mail appears to have decided that it might need to stop picking on the gays for a bit and so has turned its attention back to immigrants and them Muslims.

There's the ludicrous cat story, a Melanie Phillips article about the BNP and another story about numbers of immigrants. And then there's this rather oddly worded headline:


'The schools told'. What?

This story, like the cat one, has been stolen from yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. The impression given by the Mail's headline is that this is widespread. This is a usual tactic - such as when seven policewomen in Bristol were given headscarves for when they enter mosques and the media made it sound as if everyone was getting one. Or when the Express said all Muslims believe one thing last week.

In fact, it is only two councils (Waltham Forest & Newham) in east London who say schools should close for Diwali, Eid-Ul-Fitr and Guru Nanak, but are now launching a review of the policy after complaints from some headteachers and others.

So it is a story which fits in with the 'minorities dictating our lives' agenda of the Mail and other tabloids.

But on the Mail website homepage, the headline is this:


Which makes it clear it's them Muslims causing the trouble again. The councils instruct schools to shut for three significant holy days: one Muslim, one Sikh and one Hindu.

So why 'Schools ordered to close for Muslims holy days'? It's only one Muslim holy day (not days), as it is equally one Sikh holy day and one Hindu holy day.

The Express have done the same thing with their headline: Ramadan? No school today. A headline which isn't even accurate as Eid-Ul-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan. Nonetheless, the story begins:

Parents and headteachers are furious after schools were given permission to shut for Ramadan and other non-Christian holidays in the name of multiculturalism.

Again, the focus is on the Muslims. Despite the fact 'shut for Ramadan' doesn't really come into it.

But there is an interesting point raised in an Evening Standard article by Felix Allen, which states:

All state schools under Waltham Forest's control have been closed for Eid-Ul-Fitr, Diwali and Guru Nanak's birthday - as well as Christmas and Easter - since the Eighties.

One of these councils has been doing it for twenty years? Certainly this article from 1995 makes clear it was happening in Waltham at least fourteen years ago.

Why do the articles therefore imply it is something new? And why do they focus on Islam more than the other religions?

Mail has amnesia as it complains about 'fatism'

Lead story on the Mail website at time of writing is this:


Imagine that. Picking on someone just because they might be bigger than stick thin. The Mail is right to be outraged.

It's not as if the Mail would do such bullying. Like accusing a 9 stone woman of having 'blubber'.

Or calling Britney Spears fat with 'thick arms and thighs' and telling her it's 'time for a diet', saying John Travolta is 'obese' or describing Leona Lewis as 'dumpy'.

And the Mail certainly wouldn't dream of calling someone 'imperfect' because they have 'piled on the pounds' and have a 'cellulite riddled physique'.

'Horrific' indeed.

Moir complaints hit 21,000

The Guardian is reporting that 21,000 people have now complained to the PCC over the Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately. It is, they say, more complaints than the PCC has received in total in the last five years.

The Mail itself has written a page four story on the controversy, although seem to be following a slightly different controversy to everyone else:

A worldwide debate over a Daily Mail article on the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately spread over the internet at the weekend.

It's an interesting use of the word 'debate'. The headline even refers to a 'Stephen Gately debate' rather than a Jan Moir one.

That the Mail has chosen not to avoid the story, and following critical comments from its own columnists Suzanne Moore and Janet Street-Porter, it does look as if the it is trying to mollify critics.

It continues:

Thousands have been moved to comment on Moir's column

'Comment on'? Well, that's one way of putting it. They add the column was:

about the circumstances surrounding the star's death in Majorca, when he and his civil partner invited a Bulgarian man to their flat.

Which, again, suggests there was something untoward about both the death and the Bulgarian man.

And still there's no apology and no one has been sacked. How different to how it wanted the BBC to react after Sachs.

Mail and Sunday Telegraph: cat-alysts for more anti-immigration feeling

Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph story Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat, has turned up in the Mail today as Migrant facing deportation wins right to stay in Britain... because he's got a cat.

Both articles make clear the cat was

one detail among many.

So how come the 'many' other details are not the focus of these articles?

Because both papers have an agenda to make the immigration system seem ridiculous and worthless, and to make immigrants appear engaged in any trick they can dream up in order to be allowed to stay.

It wouldn't take a genius to work out that those headlines may not be the whole story, and a look at the forty-plus comments left on the Mail website at time of writing rather proves the point.

One, claiming to be from the 'EUSSR' (see what he did there?) says:

Is it any wonder the UK is currently the laughing stock of the entire world?

You could not make it up.

Oh. Littlejohn quotes? Really?

However, it must be added that the Mail have only told half the facts, so it is perhaps small wonder the readers who are always ready to jump on any anti-immigration story pile in. The paper stops copy-and-pasting from the Sunday Telegraph article just around the point where the truth of the case comes out. Why would they do that?

Disgracefully, the Sunday Telegraph pushes in this paragraph:

The case comes a week after The Sunday Telegraph disclosed how the same court had given permission for more than 50 foreign criminals, including killers and sex offenders, to avoid deportation because of human rights concerns.

It has nothing to do with the case at hand, but serves to link immigrants with criminals, again.

But back to the 'cat' and the Mail states categorically:

An illegal immigrant was allowed to stay in Britain because he had a cat

The Mail has gone from 'migrant' in the headline to 'illegal immigrant' in the second line of the story. The Sunday Telegraph doesn't use 'illegal immigrant' at all, referring to him as 'immigrant' throughout.

But the Mail have made it clear - it's all because of that cat:

The unnamed Bolivian was spared deportation after he told a court that he and his girlfriend had bought the animal as a pet.

The Mail goes on to quote the disgust of Damien Green and Migrationwatch's Andrew Green. Hold on, what was that about Littlejohn quotes? Here's Andrew Green:

Drawing pets into the consideration of issues of such importance is so utterly absurd that you could not make it up.

Oh dear. (Incidentally, this is just the type of story Littlejohn is likely to cover in his column tomorrow...)

The Mail also quotes from the Bolivian man's lawyer, but not these crucial statements, included in the Sunday Telegraph:

Mr O'Leary [the couple's lawyer] added that his client originally brought the case because he should have benefited from a Home Office policy on unmarried partners which gives credit to couples who have been together more than two years. The Bolivian had been with his partner for four years, he said.

How convenient the Mail forgot to include that bit. And this bit:

"It was made clear by the initial judge and then by Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson that the appellant should benefit from that policy and be granted the right to remain," he said.

"Furthermore, it was accepted by the Home Office representative at the hearing before Judge Gleeson that the policy should apply and any other errors in the initial decision by the judge, including too much detail on the cat, were immaterial."

And this bit:

He added: "This case was won because the Home Office had a policy which they did not initially apply but later, through their representative, they accepted should have been applied."

A spokesman from the Judicial Communications Office said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK."

So the actual story is the Home Office had a policy which it didn't adhere too.

Moreover, the 'too much detail' on that cat was 'immaterial' and accepted as much by the Home Office.

So how does that become 'immigrant stays because of cat'?