Star continues lying about Jordan, Mail continues publishing pics of her tits

The Daily Star should be renamed the Daily Jordan. The tawdry rag has had the over-inflated, over-exposed (insert whatever it is you think she does/is here) on the front page for every one of the last six days, and for nine of the last ten.

Is there really nothing more important going on in the world?

And every front page headline is a piece of total fiction. So Jordan's 'girl on girl jungle lust' didn't exist. Her 'fumble in the jungle' didn't happen either and was her having a shower.

The next day they revealed:


The Star said she had:

let slip she is doing I’m A Celebrity to impress her ex-husband.

'Let slip'?

She told OK! magazine: 'Hopefully he’ll watch the show and realise what a decent person I am.'

So she 'let slip' to magazine with weekly sales of around half a million? A magazine that happens to be owned by Star owner Richard Desmond. Surely this isn't just some lame cross-promotional fluff is it?

For the full interview with Kate, see this week’s issue of OK! magazine out now.

Oh, it is.

But even in the excerpts the Star publishes, she says neither she wants Pete back, or that she wants to re-marry him. Indeed, she quite clearly says the opposite:

She said: 'I’m 100% not looking for love. The producers told me they’re putting a fittie in there, but I’m quite happy with the relationship that I’m in.'

The next day there was no pic, but her name still appeared in the headline:


Star front pages about 'fixed' reality shows emerge at least once per series (for Big Brother, X Factor, or whichever series is on at that time). But did I'm A Celebrity contestant Camilla Dallerup really reveal the, ahem, 'TV show's dark secret' as the sub-head suggests? Is there a direct quote where she says 'fix'? Take a guess...

On Friday, the front page was this:


The side-bar shows the Star is already running stories on Celebrity Big Brother, so that will be the paper's next obsession. The main headline is another lie though, and also, given the lack of punctuation, nonsense. But did she says she would quit? Not quite:

I’m absolutely ready to leave. I’ve had enough.

'Ready to leave' is not exactly the same as 'I'll quit' though, is it?

And then today:

At least the punctuation is correct. And there's a weird bit of innuendo too. But did she definitely say she was going to die on the reality show? Not quite:

She cried: 'I am petrified I’ll die. Please don’t let me fall. I feel like I’m being executed every day.'

Lots of people are petrified of dying. That doesn't mean it should be on the front page of what is supposed to be a newspaper.

Perhaps a dossier on all this should be sent to the Press Complaints Commission (for all that's worth). This is front page lie after front page lie. It's not accidental, it's a deliberate ploy to sell more papers and to hell with the truth.

Clause 1 of the Code of Practice says:

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

So how does all this muck not violate that?

And it's not just the Star who are obsessed with Jordan either. The Mail, which regards itself as the absolute model of middle-class reserve and good taste, now has a website which doesn't give a toss about any of that. It's become dedicated to celebrity flesh, reaching the nadir in the two upskirt pictures it has run this week. On top of that, it has now decided to publish as many pictures of Jordan's tits as it possibly can.

On Wednesday, Jan Moir wrote an attack on Jordan calling her - apparently without irony:

as charming as leprosy.

She accused her of 'whining' and 'self justification'. Also without irony. Moir also referred to her as:

rapacious, publicity-mad, boobilicious madam... KP Nutty... humourless, balloon-breasted, great, roaring She-Chav... ghastly... she looks like a toothy Donald Duck in an Alice Cooper wig. Five minutes after stepping out of a sheep dip of fake tan...

And the article comes with five pictures of Jordan just so you can see how 'balloon-breasted' she is.

The same day, another article included no fewer than 13 pictures of her and there were 13 more in following day's update, including this one, for which there is simply no excuse:


That can now be added to the many charges against Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke and his claim that 'news is far more important to us than showbiz'.

No, Martin, half-naked women are far more important to you than anything.

Richard Kay should stop writing about the Aga Khan

Two months ago, Mail diarist Richard Kay - who seems to spend his time revealing gossip about rich people most of us haven't heard of - apologised to Prince Hussain Aga Khan for a story that was seven years out of date:

My story of January 2 suggested that Prince Hussain Aga Khan had added a spare room to his house "despite the credit crunch". In fact, the renovation work took place between 2001 and 2002. Prince Hussain has also asked me to point out that his wife is also not a psychologist, as has been reported. My apologies for the errors.

Then last month (although this has only just been put on the PCC website), another Richard Kay apology for another Aga Khan story:

In an item on May 4, I reported that two boats owned by the Aga Khan, including the Destriero, which broke the transatlantic speed record, had been moved from Plymouth to a German boatyard for anticipated multimillion-pound refits.

I am now told there are no current plans or contracts for the refit of Destriero and that the other vessel has been decommissioned and no longer exists.

I apologise for creating any incorrect impression.

'Creating any incorrect impression'? That an interesting way of saying 'making up stuff'.

Outrage, Nazis, immigrants and upskirts: welcome to the Mail

There are several articles on the Daily Mail website today that deserve a quick comment.

First, there's the Mail's second attempt in a few days to out-do the Daily Sport in publishing 'upskirt' pictures of young women in short skirts/dresses.

Generally speaking, there is very little news value in 'singer gets into limo', but a lack of news value has never stopped the Mail website before...

The paparazzi pictures they have used of Rihanna - the singer in the limo in this particular article - are really, really tacky.

She's lifting her leg up! She's bending over in front of the camera! You can see her pants! And there's this one, which may be one of the weirdest pictures the paper has ever run:


It's an incredibly cheap and crude attempt to boost website hits. And to slag someone off for their 'dimpled thighs' (what is it with the Mail and 'dimpled thighs'?)

Second, the Mail has decided that it is going to be outraged by another comedian who has had the audacity to tell a joke:



Here's what the Mail claims Elton said:

The novelist called The Queen 'a sad little old lady' and Prince Philip a 'mad old bigot who wishes it was still the war'. Elton claimed Prince Charles was 'a disillusioned ex-hippy,' Prince Andrew is 'a bit of a yob,' and suggested Prince Edward was gay.

It's not exactly funny, but how can the Mail possibly justify calling those remarks 'sick' and 'foul mouthed'?

And like the Frankie Boyle joke about Rebecca Adlington, if it's all so awful, why the need to repeat it? In detail.

As one of the comments says:

Quick everyone! Get outraged - the Daily Mail has spoken! - Delboy, georgeosborneland, 17/11/2009 14:09

Third, the murder of Geeta Aulakh which is currently top story on the Mail website. When it first appeared, the headline was:

Asian woman, 28, found dying in street with hand chopped off

Thankfully it has been changed to remove the pointless reference to the woman's race - perhaps because she was born in Britain.

Next is How Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine tried to take Christ out of Christmas, a shameless attempt by the Mail and the people leaving comments to suggest those mythical people who want to 'ban Christmas' are all Nazis. As 5CC noted, the stories have already begun this year, with the Times falsely claiming Dundee was banning Christmas despite plenty of very easily found evidence to the contrary.

The comments include lots of myth-based, fact-free ramblings as:

Oddly the 'Nazification' of Christmas reminds me of so many of the stories we hear about PC local authorities trying to rename Christmas 'Winterval' - Iain, Bristol, UK, 17/11/2009 16:20 Yes, and certain individuals are trying to take Christ out of Christmas over here, in this day and age too! - Pol, Stoke on Trent, 17/11/2009 16:41 Bit like some of OUR councils...eh - Sid Jacques, Durham, 17/11/2009 17:12

Yes, the Nazi's are exactly like our councils Sid. Probably using wheelie bins instead of freight trains.

As Richard Bartholomew pointed out, the article is very similar in content to this one published in Spiegel four days ago. From the original:

One symbol posed a particular problem for the Nazis, namely the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. "Either it was a six-pointed star, which was a symbol of the Jews, or it was a five-pointed star, which represented the Soviets," Breuer says. Either way, the star had to go.

From the Mail:

The symbol that posed a particular problem for the Nazis was the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. 'Either it was a six-pointed star, which was a symbol of the Jews, or it was a five-pointed star, which represented the Soviets,' Breuer said. It had to go.

From the original:

In the 1930s, their efforts were aimed mainly at changing the ideology of Christmas, Breuer explains. But when World War II started, the focus became more practical.

From the Mail:

In the 1930s, the Nazis tried to change the ideology of Christmas. But when World War II started, the focus became more practical.

And so on. The whole Mail article is a poor bit of plagiarism which has been picked up just as a warm up for the many 'PC bans Christmas' stories to come.

Finally the immigration story. The article Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity begins:

An Afghani who arrived in Britain on a hijacked jet has been granted asylum after converting to Christianity.

It's not until the fifth sentence - conveniently beneath the first picture, so well down the page - that the Mail explains the man in question wasn't one of the hijackers, which the first sentence heavily implies.

There are at least three comments that have been left by readers which refer to the still untrue 'immigrant stays because he had a cat' story, suggesting this Afghan should have got a pet rather than go to the trouble of converting to Christianity. It is deeply worrying that a lie that has been spread around by the media so casually is now accepted as true.

One of the other comments - and like the rest, this has been accepted and published by a moderator - says:


It's hard to understand why 'J' thought it necessary to reveal his genius in such elegant prose, why the mods thought it imperative to pass it on, and why at least thirty-eight people have voted it positive. What is he even 'yeah sure'-ing about?

But most of the comments are of the kind where you can sense their head shaking as their intolerant fingers bash out their message. The Human Rights Act, stupid judges, the Liebour government, crooked asylum lawyers and all liberals seem to be being 'blamed' for what they believe will see crowds of Christian converts trying to get to Britain.

But here's the thing. According to the Mail, this man is forty-nine, has two children and although he:

was a Muslim, [he was] baptized as a Christian five years after arriving in the UK and now regularly attends church and bible classes in Hounslow, west London.

So a middle-aged, Church-going, father of two. Isn't that exactly the type of person the Mail loves?

And isn't that the sort of immigrant the Mail's readers love? After all, they demand that all immigrants should integrate into British life. It's a Christian country, they repeatedly say. If they don't like, they should leave. If they can't be like us, they're not welcome.

So this immigrant has converted to the religion of the host country and probably been to church far more regularly over the last four and a half years than most of them. And yet, he's a fraud who's not welcome either:

Any wangle will do ... pass me the sickbag.
- Philip, Bankrupted Britain, 17/11/2009 13:55

he is a muslim not a christian
- joseph diazrald, London, 17/11/2009 13:37

Now I have just about heard it all.Expect a rush of born again Christians on the next ferry from Calais
- Dave, Essex, 17/11/2009 13:21

Deport this bogus man.
- BD, Kent, 17/11/2009 13:07

Disgusting - extremely disgusting......
Don't encourage them - or else they will be a flood, and the boat will sink.
- Expatriate, Hamburg, Germany, 17/11/2009 11:57

Either way, he couldn't win. It's almost as if the Mail and its readers just don't want any immigrants here at all...

Abu Hamza and the taps of doom

A day after the Sun revealed that Abu Hamza has had new taps fitted in his prison cell - on account of his hook-hand - the Mail has gone further.

Apparently, these evil taps are all part of a plumbing conspiracy to spread hate!

Even the headline Hate preacher Abu Hamza secretly gives lectures on Islam... through the water pipes of his prison cell doesn't sound right.

Journalist Rebecca Camber writes:

Hate preacher Abu Hamza is delivering extremist sermons to prisoners through the water pipes of his cell, it has been claimed.

The Muslim cleric is defying a preaching ban imposed by prison bosses to radicalise inmates.

He is able to give his lectures through the plumbing that connects to neighbouring cells in Belmarsh Prison.

And the source for this? Well, it's almost in a new report from the Quilliam Foundation. On page 46, the report mentions Hani al-Sibai, who is described as running:

a popular pro-jihadist website

and quotes him as writing:

‘For the purpose of teaching the youth in the adjacent cells Sheikh Abu Hamza has had to resort to reciting the Quran through the pipes that link the cells – which is a tiresome procedure!’

This post was written in April 2009 so for the Mail to talk about this happening in the present is more than likely guesswork.

More importantly, the Mail has taken the phrase 'reciting the Quran' and turned it into 'delivering extremist sermons' as if they're the same thing. Which to the Mail they probably are.

Ridiculous indeed

The Express apologises for another error today:

Our August 5th article "Strictly out of Step about changes to the television programme "Strictly Come Dancing" said that Sharon Osbourne had decided against appearing on it because the money on it was "ridiculous".

We are happy to accept that this is incorrect.

Sharon Osbourne decided against appearing on it because of her work commitments and busy schedule in America.

We apologise for any embarrassment caused.

Star repeats the same I'm A Celebrity stories it made up last year

So, sigh, the new series of I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here (IAC) - the show that's launched a thousand panto careers - has begun. The Express, Star, Metro and Mirror have it on their front pages today. The Mail had the faces of several of the - ahem - slebs on their front cover last week.

The Sun's website homepage currently has three Jordan stories at the top. The Mail's main picture story at time of writing is about Jordan in a bikini (shock!) and other IAC articles are also listed in their Femail section.

And this is just the start. There is going to be lots of pisspoor coverage of this pisspoor programme for several weeks to come.

Oh joy.

One person you won't find in the jungle, however, is Britain's Got Talent warbler Susan Boyle. Back in May, the Daily Star confidently put it on their front page that Boyle was 'to star in I'm a Celebrity'. This blog equally confidently predicted it wouldn't happen. And it hasn't.

Of course, revealing that the Star has front page stories which are full of lies and misleading headlines isn't really revealing at all. The 'Jade back in BB' front page - published after St Jade had died - was a prime example, but they are many, many others.

But for this series of I'm A Celebrity, they're repeating fictional stories they invented for the last series.

Here's the Star from yesterday:


As you might have guessed, the story reveals she said no such thing. In fact, after claiming in the first sentence of the article that:

Jordan has set her sights on Sam Fox for a steamy jungle clinch

there are no quotes from Jordan or anyone else to back up that claim. So: it's a lie. And it's a lie they used last year when they claimed two female contestants were involved in a 'sexsation':


And that didn't happen either. This is meant to be a newspaper. We know it isn't. But it is meant to be. Yet selling itself on the basis of some 'girl-on-girl lust' is something that Nuts - or a men's magazine even higher on the shelf - might do. Star owner Richard Desmond still owns porn channels and used to own such delightful magazines as Asian Babes and Horny Housewives. Clearly old habits die hard.

There may well be some lust between two people of the same sex on IAC - after all, contestants Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan are in a civil partnership. But the homophobic Star would never dream of selling an edition with same-sex male 'lust' on the cover.

The Star does, however, like heterosexual 'lust' on the cover. Or should that be, 'imagined heterosexual lust'? Here's today's front page:


'Fumble in the Jungle'. 'Topless romp'. 'Scenes too hot for TV'. Surely this must be true?

Errr, no. Once again the actual story doesn't even pretend any such thing has happened. What the poor, sheltered Star believes is a 'fumble' and a 'topless romp' is what most people refer to as 'washing':

Kate Price flashed her boobs twice within in 60 minutes of landing in the jungle. First she stripped down to her undies in a Celeb challenge, then she went for a shower. But Kate, aka Jordan, soon found that she had some topless rivals. Busty Kim Woodburn, 67, showed off her whoppers as she took a bath. Sam Fox also plunged into the pool.

Wow. And if all that is - ahem - 'too hot for TV' how come both the Star and the Mail have lots of screenshots taken from a TV?

It even adds a totally made-up quote from a conveniently anonymous source who 'says':

“If they’re showing that much flesh in the first 24 hours, what on Earth is going to happen in the days to come?”

Errr, nothing? It's dismal stuff and even less titillating than a below-par Robin Askwith film.

And it's not the first time they have decided people having a shower is a 'romp' either. From last year:


Note the use of the 'too steamy for TV' idea, as the Star clearly thinks its readers are stupid enough to believe a ratings hungry TV producer wouldn't put sleb romps on screen if they happened. Which they haven't. Again.

The Star is Richard Desmond's other worthless rag. The Express thinks it's a serious newspaper. The Star knows it's all about tits and bums and reality TV, with the occasional recruitment drive for the far-right thrown in for good measure.

Often it seems the Star's sole, pitiful ambition is to be a running commentary on Jordan's life - the real life and the one it invents. It has put her on the front page for six out of the last eight days, which suggests it shouldn't even be called a newspaper any more.

But the lack of truth in even these utterly trivial stories is staggering. Granted, it's preferable to lying about more important issues, but is it too much to ask that the Star put out something vaguely resembling the truth? At some point. About anything.

Carole Malone: psychic or liar?

A few weeks ago, Carole Malone was proved to be a liar when her own paper retracted her ridiculous claim that immigrants get 'free cars'. This came soon after the paper had to pay damages to Cherie Blair for false claims Malone had made about her.

She lies about immigration quite often - pushing all the myths about council housing, health queue jumping and benefit scrounging, without producing shred of evidence to back any of them up.

And thanks to Somerset Bob, we have another example of Malone's dishonesty. In mid-October it was widely trailed that Cheryl Cole was to perform her new single on The X Factor and that she was not going to be singing live (although only some of it appears to have been mimed in the end). Noticing that the show goes out on a Saturday night, Malone fired off her column for the next day's News of the World. She asked:

why did she mime her new solo single on last night’s X Factor?

And then answered:

It suggests she can’t sing. It suggests that she isn’t capable of doing a big number on her own. It also suggests she doesn’t have the guts to perform in front of a live audience — all the things the inexperienced contestants are expected to do without a murmur...last night’s performance showed that, unlike the X Factor finalists, she’s not a real talent at all — just a coiffed, over-promoted, manufactured one.

All the usual Glenda Slagg-type bile you would expect. There were just a few slight problems.

One was that it was only a year ago that Malone was calling Cole a:

drop-dead gorgeous, incredibly successful singing star

Amazing how someone can be so firm in their thoughts until they decide to change them.

But the main problem with Malone's article was this: Cole didn't actually perform her single until the Sunday night results show.

So as the first editions of the News of the World went to press, it contained Malone's review of something she not only hadn't seen, but which hadn't even happened yet.

It's as if Malone had decided what she was going to think without waiting for the facts. Imagine that. The 'review' was not published online but was highlighted by Tony Blackburn in a series of tweets, and on some forums.

This is a deliberate piece of deception. Malone sat down and churned out her article knowing it was all a lie. So not only is she a dreadful writer, she is totally dishonest and lacking in shame.

In other jobs, pulling a trick like that would probably get a lot of people fired. At the phone-hacking News of the World, you just carry on.

Mail loves pictures of Tess Daly in her pants

The Femail section of the Mail website is the bit where they do all the Heat-style sleb gossip and paparazzi pictures. The third story there this morning is the 'news' that Tess Daly is fronting an advertising campaign for frilly knickers shop La Senza:


Cynics might suggest that using two pictures of a blonde in lingerie (plus another of her in a bikini) is a shameless way of getting hits to the website.

They would be right.

After all, isn't this the exact same story, with two of the exact same pictures, that the Mail website published only three weeks ago:


Yes. It is.

Here's an extract from the original 'story':

The campaign is Tess's first major lingerie campaign in more than ten years.

La Senza said Tess's Steal The Show campaign, which features her in a showgirl setting with top hat and cane, aims to bring together the two sides of every woman - playful and fun, yet glamorous and confident.

Tess said: 'As a mum-of-two, I was flattered to be asked to model for La Senza's Christmas lingerie campaign.

'It was great fun becoming a showgirl for the day, complete with top hat and cane.'

And here's an extract from today's brand new story:

La Senza said that Tess's Steal The Show campaign, which features her in a showgirl setting with top hat and cane, aims to bring together the two sides of every woman - playful and fun, yet glamorous and confident.

The campaign is Tess's first major lingerie campaign in more than ten years and while she had been looking glowing and slender on the show, she looks in even better shape in the adverts - no doubt thanks to clever lighting in the studio.

'As a mum-of-two, I was flattered to be asked to model for La Senza's Christmas lingerie campaign,' she said earlier this month.

'It was great fun becoming a showgirl for the day, complete with top hat and cane.'

Amazing. It's as if they have just used the same pics and words as three weeks ago to cash in on the fact she was on TV last night.

Perhaps Mail Online Editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke would like to explain where the news value is in this once, let alone twice.

Lots of tits at the Mail

A quick fact for Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke who once claimed 'news is far more important to us than showbiz'.

If you search the Mail website for 'cleavage', look at how many results you find:


That's even more than the 867 results you get at The Sun.

But it's a good job we have the Mail asking those important 'news' questions such as:

Guess who broke Posh's 'no cleavage' rule?

and

Where on earth has Christina Aguilera's cleavage gone?

Just over a year ago, a Mail article by Louise Janson carried the headline:

For goodness sake, Liz, Jordan, Posh, Amy, put them away - we're suffering from cleavage fatigue

'We' may be, the Mail very obviously isn't.

All we care about is how a singer looks, not how they sound

Alexandra Burke, winner of last year's X Factor, has switched on Manchester's Christmas lights. The Mail, always keen to report on totally unimportant and uninteresting sleb gossip, is on the case. But rather than Daily Mail Reporter, we have a named journalist - Chris Johnson - writing the article. He begins:

Alexandra Burke certainly knows how to please a crowd.

Oh so she sang well then?

The X Factor winner dazzled during a live performance in a tiny little black dress which showed off her incredibly long legs.

OK, but how was her singing?

She was in Manchester to turn on the city's Christmas lights - but despite plunging temperatures the singer braved the chill in the revealing outfit.

In fact, there isn't a single mention of what she sang or how well she sang it. But they do include an upskirt photo, of the type more often found on the front of the Daily Sport.

And inevitably, the (moderated) comments are mostly about her looks too:

she is the ugliest winner yet, in my opinion and is distracting us with her legs.
- bob, wirral, 14/11/2009 8:53

They are not never-ending legs, someone like Gisele has perfect legs, these are stumpy and chubby, put them away love!!!
- Alycia Channelle, London, 14/11/2009 0:36

CHUNKKKYYY!!
- kriss, fort william, 13/11/2009 23:43

She has horrible legs, too muscly.
- Kate J., london, 13/11/2009 23:22

she looks a bit like a man in drag!
- ?, ?, 13/11/2009 20:31

not flattering at all. she's not got the face or body for the entertainment industry.
- roleen, hertfordshire, 13/11/2009 20:25

Why do so many people feel the need to leave comments like these? And why do the mods feel the need to publish such nasty and unbelievably inane comments?

Especially that last comment from 'Roleen'. Talent doesn't matter - it's only about how the face and body looks. But is that any surprise when that is all the Mail ever focuses on?

One other comment says:

Thought she was supposed to sing. Silly me.
- Keith Spencer, Derby, 14/11/2009 7:47

She is singing. The mic in her hand is a bit of a giveaway. But Keith, like Johnson and the Mail and many, many others are only interested in judging her on how she looks, not on what she's doing.

Can a Sun columnist really complain about the 'early sexualisation of young girls'?

Last week, Nadia Saint commented on a Jane Moore column about 'the early sexualisation of young girls', in a paper where 'Rosie, 18, from Middlesex' is a Page 3 regular. But look at what the Sun say about Rosie:


If she is 18 now, and made her 'debut' nearly sixteen months ago, she must have been 17 then. Yet the 2003 Sexual Offences Act raised the legal age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

So either the Sun broke the law then, or it is lying about Rosie's age now in order to make her seem younger than she actually is.

Which doesn't look good either way.

And for Moore to happily take the Murdoch shilling and then criticise the 'sexualisation of young girls' makes her seem a bit of a hypocrite.

But you get a lot of hypocrisy at The Sun these days...

Recommended reads

An interesting article from Greg Mitchell about media coverage of the Fort Hood killings. When the Times used the headline The mother who brought down the Fort Hood killer, Roy Greenslade wrote:

I really thought we had got beyond the stage of describing women in such terms.

Now it appears that Sgt Mark Todd, not Kimberly Munley, may have been the person who actually shot Maj Hasan, thus stopping his rampage. Mitchell asks:

Just coincidence that a white woman got the credit over a black male?

Elsewhere, following on from the Express' bizarre front page about tea, where research funded by the Tea Council came to the staggering conclusion that tea is good for you, Nadia spotted a similar story in the Telegraph about eggs. Turns out, British Lion Eggs are saying eggs keep women trim. Must be true then.

Nadia has also mentioned a grotesque request from the Daily Mail for 10-14 year olds with body hang-ups to get in touch for a feature. This from the same paper that just a few days ago was - as Angry Mob pointed out - snidely remarking that Beth Ditto is not stick thin. And is always making fun of people if they are either too thin or too fat.

Also at Angry Mob, Uponnothing highlights that last week, Littlejohn used two of his favourite devices again - comparing events to a TV show, and the 'hilarious' imaginary conversation. He really is worth every penny.

Sun apologises, Gaunt disappears

The Sun have apologised for getting Jacqui Janes' name wrong on their website:

(via Rhodri Marsden)

They have not, however, corrected any of the errors on Jon Gaunt's 'daily' blog, including the incorrect spelling of Wootton Bassett.

And it's certainly an interesting use of the word 'daily' when today is Friday and Gaunt's last post was on, errr, Monday.

The Sun learns about glass houses

After several days of attacks on Gordon Brown over his handwritten letter to Jacqui Janes, the whole story appears to be backfiring on The Sun.

Roy Greenslade is reporting on a backlash from the public and from other newspapers - including those very hostile to Labour.

Here's what The Sun wrote two days ago:

Blundering Mr Brown left war hero Jamie Janes's grieving mother in tears by sending her an error-filled letter of condolence in which he even mis-spelled their name.

The hand-written note to heartbroken Jacqui JANES about her 20-year-old son, began: Dear Mrs JAMES.

Good job the paper is on hand to make sure Mrs Janes' name is always correct. Oh wait:


Still, the paper - which promotes itself so heavily on its backing for 'Our Boys' - wouldn't misspell Wootton Bassett, the Wiltshire town which has held 98 repatriation ceremonies for dead soldiers:


Hmm. But at least they didn't illustrate the death of a British soldier with a picture of some grinning broadcaster:


Some people might call mistakes like those 'bloody shameful'.

(Hat-tip to fisher1980 and Harry's Place for first and third images)

Gaunt gives Brown an English lesson

The Sun's Littlejohn-wannabe Jon Gaunt has been churning out a daily blog on the paper's website. His weekly column in the printed paper was dropped by new editor Dominic Mohan so we get a dose of his ignorant, 'I ain't no racist but...'- type views online instead.

His Monday blog attacks Gordon Brown over the letter to a dead soldier's mother. At time of writing, it is noticeable that the story is well down the Sun's homepage. The Guardian are reporting the Sun's political editor was unsure about the tone of the coverage and the comments left on the story by readers are more sympathetic to the Prime Minister than the Sun probably hoped.

Gaunt begins his outburst by calling him 'Brown Pants Brown', a woeful attempt to ape the woeful nicknames Littlejohn gives people. He refers to Brown as 'unelected' twice, which follows on from his Friday blog when he called him, errr, 'unelected'. Littlejohn also uses repetition instead of original thought and frequently calls Brown 'unelected'. And Littlejohn's column today also included an attack on the Prime Minister...

Brown is well known for suffering serious problems with his eyesight and having poor handwriting as a result. Gaunt says it was insult to all British troops that he was:

scribbling a note that even a five year old could have bettered.

Of course, Gaunt's blog is the absolute pinnacle of brilliantly written, grammatically correct English. Oh, no it isn't:

If they had spent as much time working out how we were going to finish this and the Iraq war as they did spicing up the dodgy weapons of mass destruction dossier perhaps less lads would be coming home in body bags.

'Less lads'?

Then there's this paragraph, about The X Factor:


Spot the missing apostrophe, the missing 'd', the missing capital 'T' and an erroneous capital 'T'. Like the rest of the blog, a few commas would help too.

However, hopefully that is a firm promise to go underground if 'Jedward' release a single. Because they surely will and then we could be spared Gaunt's tedious blogs and radio shows.

Oh, and his numerous errors, such as:
and:
and:
Would a five year old be able to better Gaunt's use of capital letters? Let's not forget, Gaunt is meant to be a journalist. He's meant to be able to write.

He also berates Brown for his spelling, saying he couldn't even:

be bothered to check the spelling of the lad's name.

Of course, Gaunt thoroughly proof-reads everything and would never, ever get any spelling wrong when it relates to dead soldiers. Would he?


'Wootten Basset'? Doesn't he mean Wootton Bassett? And surely it should be 'in' not 'at' Wootton Bassett.

Towards the end of his rant, amid a series of insults ('disrespectful buffoon', 'unelected, deluded fool') he adds that Brown:

has always exhibited disdain for our troops as emphasised by the 46 seconds he spent talking about them during his party conference speech.

He's criticising Brown for not talking about Afghanistan enough. Clearly Gaunt would never do such a thing. For example, in the 11 days since his blog began he has written about Afghanistan three times, and - being charitable - on two other occasions he's talked about poppies.

But that would be a lot less than the eight times he has written about something he clearly regards as more important: The X Factor.

Indeed, the Monday blog post has his views about Brown and Afghanistan sandwiched between two pieces about the tedious 'talent' show.

The Sun broke this story and has run with it - with help from their friends at Sky - so it was inevitable that their 'star' columnists would have their say.

But isn't it ironic that Gaunt accuses Brown of bad writing and spelling errors, while his own blog is so appallingly written?