Desmond gets into trouble again

News from the MediaGuardian and Roy Greenslade that Richard Desmond has been up to no good. Again.

This time, it's the Advertising Standards Authority who have slapped down the Daily Express for:

running favourable features about goods advertised on the same page in the paper.

Hmm. And it's not just a one off either. The ASA has noted not one, not two, but three examples of it. Greenslade reports that when interviewed on the Today programme about it, ASA chief executive Guy Parker called it:

'a relatively extreme example'.

Here's some of the choice quotes from the ASA's ruling:

The ASA noted that the articles were always and uniquely favourable to the product featured in the accompanying ad and contained claims that have been or would be likely to be prohibited in advertisements...

We considered that by using that approach, the publisher and advertiser were intentionally attempting to circumvent the Code by asserting the top of the pages were not advertising...

We concluded that the routine publication of these pages and the nature of the articles strongly suggested a commercial arrangement existed between the newspaper and the advertiser and that the advertiser exerted a sufficient degree of control over the content of the articles to warrant the term "Advertisement feature" or the like being placed above the articles.

So yet another example that Desmond isn't fit to be running one newspaper, let alone four.

And it's interesting to note that the rulings refer to the ASA Monitoring Team. This suggests something pro-active, the regulator is looking for transgressions and acting when it finds them. If the ASA can do that with the newspapers, why can't the newspaper regulator, the PCC?

Mail and Littlejohn can't work out why Gypsies need project to overcome prejudice

Jonathan at No Sleep Til Brooklands has expressed a view I felt a little earlier when I read Littlejohn's latest column which is no more than a horrendous anti-Gypsy rant. 'I'd go through it,' Jonathan says, 'but I can't actually stand to read any of it again'.

I know how he feels. But I'll do my best. But to start with, another anti-Gypsy story from today's Mail. The heart sinks when you read a headline such as How gipsies got £5m of Lottery cash to beat planning rules... and fund course on assertiveness training. Why? Because firstly, you know it's rubbish, and secondly, you know every Mail reader will believe it and launch into more anti-Gypsy, 'this country isn't our own any more' bullshit.

But anyone with functioning rational brain cells would take one look at that headline and think this: how would the Lottery fund 'beating planning laws' because that would mean breaking the law. Answer: they wouldn't.

When you scroll down to see the list of projects that has been funded, you see number one is the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group's 'Training to understand planning policies'.

So 'understanding planning policies' is learning how to 'beat' them?

Well no, of course not. Here's the actual project description:

The Traveller community will better understand and contribute to planning policies that affect their way of life. They will meet planners and policy makers at seminars and forums to discuss issues including housing needs and resolving general misunderstanding and mistrust of authorities.

Does that sound like teaching them to 'beat' planning laws? No, of course not. And how is that problematic? Surely the Mail wants Gypsies and Travellers to engage with planners?

In fact, looking at the list of projects, it is hard to see how any of them could be in any way controversial - learning about community involvement, health and education advice, advice on housing and employment, among others.

The Mail sniffs as well at a media training project, despite publishing two articles in one day which prove why the Gypsy point of view needs to be put into the media far more.

As always, key information is left to the end of the story. Here's a spokesman from the Big Lottery Fund:

From June 2004 to February 2009, Big has made awards totalling £4.76million to initiatives that have benefited gipsies and travellers. This is equivalent to 0.2 per cent of the fund's good cause funding.

So all this fuss, and dozens of abusive comments about Gypsies and the Lottery over 0.2% of the fund? The Government also gets attacked, eventhough they do not administer the fund, but Mail readers like to blame them for everything anyway. The spokesman goes on:

Recent research has shown that only an estimated 20 per cent of 11 to 16-year-olds from the gipsy and traveller population attend secondary school and 68 per cent had experienced racism or prejudice because they were a traveller.

Being on the end of anti-Gypsy prejudice? Surely that's not a problem...is it?

Well yes, and Littlejohn then shows even more prejudice than the lottery story. Are you sitting comfortably? Let's go tarmacking with Teabag, Tess and Toby focuses on a new reading book for seven year olds which aims to promote tolerance of Gypsies and Travellers.

You would think anything that is aimed at teaching kids about tolerance of others would be welcomed, but when it comes for Gypsies, immigrants or homosexuals, the Mail doesn't want to know.

Tess is a single mum, of Toby; Teabag is their dog. Littlejohn laments the lack of a father figure and then claims he is:

surprised that they didn't make Tess a lesbian, who became pregnant by artificial insemination using sperm donated by a transgendered friend.

If you're playing 'Littlejohn bingo', mark off the totally irrelevant reference to homosexuals. It's frankly astonishing he didn't make a crude reference to the dog being called Teabag.

Anyway, he gets into his stride with a torrent of anti-Gypsy stereotypes. The headline covered the tarmacking thing (which also made the headline of the NHS story). Underage marriage?

Tess would be married, probably from the age of 14. Travellers are one of the last bastions of both the nuclear and extended family.

Gypsies are all thieves?:

In a nod to accuracy, Tess makes her money at car boot sales, although the stories don't elaborate on where she gets her merchandise. Car boot sales are notorious for the disposal of stolen property.

They all claim benefits and don't pay tax?:

Here in the real world, Tess would be claiming welfare benefits while pocketing the cash without declaring it to the taxman....once they've arrived in England...a buffet of benefits is laid before them.

The all drive 4x4s?:

She would be driving a £50,000 Toyota Landcruiser (running on red agricultural diesel) with a stolen lawn-mower in the boot; living on either an illegal camp site or in a subsidised council house; and running a Tarmacking gang.

Gypsy kids are filthy?:

Toby wouldn't look like one of the gang from Scooby Doo. He'd be a snot-nosed scruff begging outside the local pound shop, accompanied by Teabag, a snarling, mangy mutt on a piece of string, rather than a playful contender for Crufts.

He goes on to call them troublemakers and criminals who shoplift, carry guns, leave rubbish behind them...and on and on.

With no apparent hint of irony he then says:

Over the past few years, travellers have been transformed into a protected species, their lifestyle subsidised and proselytised. They are treated as an oppressed ethnic minority

Yes, well what other groups (outside of Muslims and immigrants) does Littlejohn write about in this way? Who else does he call untrustworthy unwashed criminals? He even uses the word 'pikeys' which is the type of nasty insult that is in the same category as other insults he almost certainly wouldn't use.

He also claims:

£4.7million of Lottery money has been spent helping travellers to subvert the planning laws.

Which wasn't even true for the £190,000 project the earlier Mail story mentioned, let alone all £4.7 million.

When the Mail reported on these reading books a few days ago, it added where the money had come from to pay for them:

The books, which are recommended by the charity The Children's Society, were paid for by a grant from the Lloyds TSB Foundation. The bank is 43 per cent state owned after the Government bailed it out with millions of pounds of public money.

See what it did there? It's your money paying for this pro-Gypsy propaganda, so get angry.

And of course, Littlejohn and all the ignorant sheep danced to the tune exactly as the Mail intended and, of course, wanted.

Mail's crush on sixteen year old continues

The Mail website is back to one of it's favourite celebrity fancies - 16 year old Miley Cyrus.

The tone of the article is - 'can you believe she was pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'?

The point of the article is - 'look at these pictures of her pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'.

And then watch the website hits rack up.

The story begins:

Miley Cyrus is a teen star with a wholesome image.

But there was nothing innocent about her dance routine at the Teen Choice Awards last night.

Dressed in micro shorts, black leather biker boots and wearing piles of jewellery, the 16-year-old appeared older than her years as she cavorted around a pole onstage.

But here's the thing: she wasn't pole dancing. A pole attached to what looks like an ice cream cart came on stage and she spent about 30 seconds holding it. There was no 'cavorting'. And to say there was 'nothing innocent' about the routine is a very large overstatement, seemed solely designed to set the minds of middle aged men (such as those who edit the Mail and its website?) racing.

Indeed, by modern pop standards, it looked fairly innocent.

Still, there's five very large pictures of Miley attached to the story, just so everyone can have a good look at how shocking it all is.

Then the Mail adds:

Perhaps Miley, the star of Hannah Montana, was hoping to charm an older audience than her loyal teenage fanclub.

Hmmm - trying to attract the attention of an 'older audience'?

You certainly wouldn't get the Mail trying such tactics...

Carole Malone gets it wrong again (cont.)

Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Ha.

The News of the World has paid libel damages to Cherie Blair after 'star' columnist Carole Malone wrote a load of lies about her in one of her pisspoor rants.

Sadly, the amount is being kept secret, but with legal costs on top, it wouldn't be cheap.

Here's the paper's apology in its full glory:

In the Carole Malone column on 5 October, several criticisms were made of Cherie Blair after she appeared as a panellist at a fringe meeting attended by prominent victims of crime.

In particular, it was not right to say Mrs Blair arrived with hordes of security men, only appeared for publicity and was "inhuman" in her responses about the Human Rights Act.

We apologise to her for these assertions which we accept were unfounded.

Unfounded assertions in a Carole Malone column?

Surely that can't possibly be right?

Free car anyone?

Carole Malone gets it wrong again

Carole Malone is treating News of the World readers to more of her idiotic views on immigration, in an article on (yes) Judge Trigger.

Truth Triggers a rotten response uses 'truth' in the same way Littlejohn did. In fact, it's much the same as his rant - Trigger's telling the truth, you can't say what you mean any more, and on and on.

Needless to say, the 'truth' never comes into it.

Quoting Trigger's remarks on people coming to the UK to avail themselves of 'generous' benefits, Carole adds:

So what did he get wrong? What lie did he tell? Who did he insult apart from illegal immigrants who come here to sell drugs? And who the hell cares what they feel?

The linking of illegal immigrants to drug dealers may be related to the case at hand, although that phrasing seems designed to imply that it is more common than that.

And if she wants a list - welfare benefits are not generous, immigrants can't easily get them and they don't come here just to get them.

Judge Trigger also pointed out that the burden of the millions being handed out in benefits to people who come here illegally...

So what did he get wrong there?

Well for the hundredth time, illegal immigrants don't get benefits. Why is that so bloody difficult for these thick columnists to understand that?

Nothing the judge said hasn't been said by me, a whole host of other journalists

Yes, and you're all wrong.

Then her agenda becomes ever more clear:

So, again, I ask why is Judge Trigger being investigated? The Office for Judicial Complaints says that if a judge makes insulting or racist remarks he can be sacked.

Now, what Carole has done, in an entirely underhand, but absolutely deliberate way, is avoid repeating Trigger's remarks about national debt since 1997. When the investigation was announced, the statement made clear it was about whether his comments

extended overtly into the political arena

which a judge is meant to be above. So that's why he is being investigated. Read the one paragraph statement Carole. It's not hard.

So racism doesn't come into it at all. Anywhere. Maybe the Office for Judicial Complaints does say that racist remarks will lead to a sacking - as they should - but that's not what this case is about. That's just her way of pushing the tabloid readers' buttons. Warming to her theme she goes on to say:

The inquiry into Judge Trigger's remarks is an affront to free speech because what it says is that anyone who speaks out about immigration risks being punished, publicly humiliated or left with a career in ruins.

Yes, clearly you and Littlejohn are really struggling with your careers. And that 'free speech' argument is one that inevitably only extends to people she agrees with. And not to people like those Muslim protestors she wanted arrested for taking part in a demonstration.

Pathetic. And her big finish?

And there you have it - the insidiousness, the hypocrisy and the ugliness of this so-called democracy of ours writ large. In Britain today to say that an illegal immigrant who fraudulently claims benefits and sells drugs shouldn't be here or claiming those benefits IS now classed as racism.

So another outing for illegal immigrants claiming benefits, eventhough they can't, and there hasn't been anything in the (many) articles I've read on this case that says this drug dealer was on benefits.

And no one is actually classing this as racism; the criticism is that his remarks were both unwise for a judge, and just plain wrong. Racism is a straw man introduced by her, so she can knock it down in yet another nasty, ill-informed rant.

And she still hasn't explained where those free cars come from.

Mail columnist takes part in 'patronising stunt'

Remember how Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn dismissed three police women who dressed in burkhas for the day to see what it was like as 'dopey birds' engaging in a 'patroinising stunt'?

Well, never-known-to-be-interesting Mail columnist Liz Jones is revealing her experiences of spending a whole week dressed in a burkha.

Is this a 'patronising stunt' too, Richard?

As with the Star, it seems this is designed to be groundbreaking when the journos do it, but a disgrace when the police do it. Go figure.

Anyway, Jones has written a staggeringly shallow article on the subject, coming up with 'insights' that are familair to anyone who has followed the 'ban the burkha' argument.

Here's one of her pearls of wisdom:

An Arab man shouted abuse. I have no idea what he was saying

So how did you know it was abuse? But what she's really trying to say is:

the interesting point is that during my week in a burka, he was the only person who gave me any abuse whatsoever.

Of course that may be true (if he was insulting her at all) although as she spent her time going around the coffee shops in Primrose Hill, that may not be entirely surprising. Why not travel to an area where the BNP has some councillors and then see how many insults she gets?

Or indeed, to Birmingham, where another far-right protest against 'Islamic extremists' has descended into violence. Facts a bit thin on the ground as yet, but 33 people were arrested.

BBC tackles 'Muslim takeover of Europe'

Just to add a little more detail to the post on the Telegraph's Muslims in Europe stories, it is worth reading these articles from a BBC Radio 4 programme about the same issues:

Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums

Debunking a YouTube hit

Their conclusion, like Newsweek, is that the figures used in articles like the Telegraph's aren't very credible.

Telegraph runs 'Muslim takeover of Europe' scare stories

Not one, but two articles by Adrian Michaels in today's Telegraph indulge in some anti-Islam scaremongering which will no doubt pop up on the BNP website within a day or two.

A fifth of European Union will be Muslim by 2050 and Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent are the two headlines, and the use of 'time bomb' in the latter sets the agenda straight aware. The Telegraph obviously regards Muslims as destructive and dangerous.

The first story is bizarrely thin. Michaels says it is 'an investigation by the Telegraph' using 'data gathered from various sources'. But he does not say what these sources are (although it becomes clear in the second article they may not be entirely reliable).

What's curious about this is nearly a month ago, a William Underhill article in Newsweek entitled Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong made the case against the 'Muslim takeover of Europe' argument. Here's a key excerpt:

Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task.

The number of illegal immigrants is unknown and, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, many countries including France and Germany do not even tally census data on the religion of legal residents.

A virtually impossible task? Hmm. But then Michaels starts hedging his bets early in the 'time bomb' article:

a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.

The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent.

Notice how 'foreign born' and 'Muslim' become almost interchangeable in that passage. He continues:

Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.

Which seems at odds with what Newsweek said about many countries not collecting the appropriate data. Indeed, Michaels admits as much much further into the article:

raw details are hard to come by as the data is sensitive: many countries in the EU do not collect population statistics by religion.

Hmm. So is any of this reporting even remotely reliable? Michaels switches back to immigration overall:

EU numbers on general immigration tell a story on their own.

Well, yes, they do, but it's not one about the number of Muslims in Europe. So why the intertwining of the two issues? Because:

Muslims represent a particular set of issues beyond the fact that atrocities have been committed in the West in the name of Islam.

Ahh, so that's why the headline refers to a 'time bomb'. But Michaels admits:

Recent polls have tended to show that the feared radicalisation of Europe's Muslims has not occurred.

There's something quite unpleasant about an assumption that Europe's Muslims would be 'radicalised', or that we're all in danger if there are more Muslims around.

He goes on to quote a couple of reports - a US Air Force one (rather oddly) and Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor for the right-wing Weekly Standard, who has written a book on the subject.

Caldwell, it should be added, predicted in the New York Times that it is 'just possible that [Robert Kilroy-Silk] and UKIP will transform the politics of Britain and of Europe', so we might just take his predictions with a pinch of salt. Michaels writes:

Whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell

Which isn't about Muslims at all, but is mixed in which lots of stats about them (like the migrant and foreign born stuff earlier). And then:

Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050, says Mr Caldwell.

So it 'could' happen? Islam 'could' be the majority religion for, not the whole of Austria, but just the under 15s. In 40 years. Maybe.

Some 'time bomb'.

Back to Newsweek, for the final word on the issue:

Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come.

"You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Another Express error

On a smaller scale than the mass pay-outs, but it shows the Express invented a story about footballer John Terry:

In yesterday's paper we said that John Terry had spent £60,000 on buying champagne and cocktails to celebrate a team mate's birthday.

We now accept that Mr Terry did not spend any money in the hisky Mist Nightclub in Mayfair where he attended as a guest of one of his team mates.

We are happy to make the position clear and apologise to Mr Terry for any embarrassment caused by the article.

Once again it shows that being famous makes correcting stories much, much easier; this one only took a day.

Recommended reads

Septicisle has posted on how The Sun has 'forgotten' to mention (the Murdoch owned) Myspace in a negative story about the site.

While reporting on the same story, the Mail decides Facebook is partly blame for promoting gangster culture. Well it's to blame for everything else, so why not?

Meanwhile the BBC has done an interesting (and somehow, sadly unsurprising) undercover investigation which appears to show housing agents are discriminating against ethnic minorities. The same day, Sky News did an undercover investigation about dog breeding.

Benefits madness

On Monday, the Express had a story about benefits on its front page. Coming less than a week after Judge Trigger made his ill-advised comments about illegal immigrants being behind the rising national debt, it was enough to make ignorant Express readers to put two and two together and come up with more than £42.16.

The Labour's £186bn benefits madness story was based on a Centre for Policy Studies report which was essentially calling for a simplification of the benefits sytem.

But some of the figures it used were interesting - and overlooked by the Express. The £186bn figure comes from the Budget Red Book forecasts for 2009-10. But in the first table of the report, the various benefits and allowances add up to £155.9bn - which is £30bn less.

And of that, £68.58bn is set aside for pensions and pension credit. That amounts to 43.6% of £155.9bn.

Clearly the Express will be campaigning to end that type of 'madness'.

Except, it was only in June they were complaining about the state pension being 'the most miserly in the developed world'.

But back to Judge Trigger who said, lest we forget:

People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people like you, come to these shores to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that exist here.

In the past ten years the national debt of this country has risen to extraordinary heights, largely because central Government has wasted billions of pounds. Much of that has been wasted on welfare payments. For every £1 that the decent citizen, who is hard-working, pays in taxes, nearly 10 per cent goes on servicing that national debt. That is twice the amount it was in 1997 when this Government came to power.

The table here for government spending on benefits in 1997 shows the figure at around £92bn out of total government expenditure of £318bn. Using the £155bn figure for spending on benefits in 2009, out of overall expenditure of £631bn appears to show that as a percentage, benefits made up 29% of expenditure in 1997 and is 24.5% in 2009.

Comparing the figures for welfare as a proportion of national debt (which seems an odd - rather meaningless - figure, but he brought it up...) shows

• 1997 - £92bn benefits / £357bn debt = £25.8%
• 2009 - £155bn / £794bn debt = 19.5%

So benefit payments as a percentage of overall spending, and of national debt, are in fact less in 2009 than in 1997.

Which seems to make Judge Trigger's remarks, errrr, wrong.

But then we already knew that, and it was confirmed when Littlejohn declared he spoke the 'truth'.

And the Mail has been big enough to give a slightly dissenting voice on Trigger a say. Lawyer Richard O'Hagan has not written on the substance of the comments, but has said:

Whilst he was undoubtedly expressing an opinion held by a vast number of people in this country, the most important thing about any judiciary is that it should be seen to be entirely impartial and to conduct cases without any regard to their own personal opinions.

In giving vent to his own views in this way, Judge Trigger has not only done himself no favours, he has also given the accused an opportunity to appeal against their conviction and sentence, on the grounds that he was biased.

Judge Trigger was, of course, merely the latest victim of judicial foot in mouth disease.

The idea that the drug dealer may have grounds for appeal because of Trigger's remarks is an interesting development - and something Littlejohn and the others haven't seemed to consider.

How convenient.

(Hat-tip to Jamie)

Littlejohn's back - but you can't really tell because it's like every other column he's ever written

It's never a good feeling to wander into the newsagents and see that Richard Littlejohn is going to be sharing his ignorant views on immigration with Daily Mail readers.

Today's column - the whole page - is full of such cliched Littlejohn talking points it's almost like a spoof.

There's the obligatory 'Mind How You Go', 'elf'n'safety' and 'yuman rites', there's 'dopey bird' to describe a young woman who has done something he doesn't like, there's a mention of the 'Wicked Witch' (yes, he's still on about Cherie Blair), and, of course, immigration, Muslims and homosexuality, which includes the use of the word 'nonce'.

But his main topic of concern is Judge Trigger. The headline is A judge telling the truth about immigration? Take him to the cells! which includes an interesting use of the word 'truth'.

It's not really worth going over the story again, but Littlejohn does. He adds:

Enter the country illegally, steal, sell drugs, forge passports and you'll be lavished with unlimited Legal Aid, benefits and sympathy.

Of course, the man in this case entered on a visitor visa, so not 'illegally'. The idea of 'unlimited' benefits is so wildly inaccurate that it hardly deserves critical comment (surprising he didn't mention the free cars though). It's worth repeating that apart from the time he was claiming asylum, this drug dealer was not on benefits. (And if he did receive asylum support payments for a full two years while his case was considered, that only amounts to £4,384.)

It's never been quite clear why Judge Trigger's remarks about the national debt had anything to do with immigration anyway - that really isn't the cause of the UK's financial woes.

Still, Littlejohn gives some advice to the drug dealer:

Lucien McClearley's best hope of remaining in Britain would seem to be cosying up to the nearest nonce while he's inside and throwing himself on the mercy of the Court of Appeal when he's released.

See what he did there? Hilarious. He's ranting about immigration and having a dig at homosexuals. Which he does again, in another little piece:

Just a thought, but if Harriet Harman reckons that it takes a man and a woman to run the country, why does she also believe that two men are perfectly capable of bringing up a baby without a mother?

Hardly seems a comparable situation, and in any case, Harman is a bit of an idiot and her comments were more designed for her own ambition than anything else. But she actually said one of either the leader or deputy leader should be a woman. That's not the same as 'running the country' together because we have a cabinet system. But if it gives Littlejohn a chance to slag off a loving couple who want to bring up a child, that's all that matters.

And then he moves on to the South Yorkshire Police for their attempts to improve relations with the Muslim community.

This patronising stunt is the clearest evidence yet that some sections of the police force have gone stark, staring bonkers.

Patronising? You mean patronising like calling a woman a 'dopey bird'? :

imagine how the majority of dedicated proper coppers feel when they see dopey birds dipping into the dressing-up box and indulging in a little light shopping in the name of 'celebrating diversity'.

It is still hard to understand how anyone could get so upset about what three policewomen do for one day in the name of improving understanding and cultural sensitivity. Can anyone explain what the problem is?

But from Littlejohn, none of this is any surprise at all. What is surprising is how he gets paid so much for reheating stories from that week's Mail, with a few extra insults and tiresome catchphrases thrown in.

The Mail obsession with Britney's weight

Britney Spears has been photographed in a bikini, and needless to say the Mail is printing all the pics because it's in the public interest (good for bumping up the website hits). But what have they decided about her weight this time?

Well, she's back to her 'former glory' and has won the 'battle of the bulge'. Whereas last time she

looked bigger around the middle and both her thick arms and thighs betrayed her continuing passion for fast food.

The story even includes this entirely hopeless paragraph:

And just last month the singer hit the stage in Paris last month looking less than svelte.

Typing one handed has that effect.

Now let's just look at two pics of Britney, from the Mail's articles. The last time, when she was fat and needed a diet she looked like this:

And now she has 'won the battle and shed the excess pounds' she looks like this:
See the huge differences? It's amazing she even got out her front door in the morning before.

All this, of course, just one day after the Mail article about the pressure on how women should look.

Blame the 'magazines' for judging women, says Mail

With a complete lack of self-awareness, sometime Mail columnist William Leith has written on a subject close the Mail's heart - the female body.

Leith was talking to a female friend:

Something, she said, is making women hate their bodies. And the problem is getting worse...

Every day, women are bombarded with the same message - you have to be more beautiful than you were the day before...

Figures must be slim, but also voluptuous. They must be worked on, but must also look natural...

This female body-hatred has got out of hand. You can see it in magazines in the newsagents. From a distance, the predominant colour is the tawny-pink of perfect female flesh. And then, inside the magazines, you get all those features about cellulite, bingo wings and muffin tops...

Something, she said, is making women hate their bodies.

Something is behind all these airbrushed breasts and jutting bottoms.

How ironic. And all the fault of those 'magazines in the newsagents'. Obviously the Mail would never comment on a woman's cellulite.

No, those articles on Fergie, Jerry Hall, Mischa Barton, Martine McCutcheon and Jennifer Lopez were all in 'magazines in the newsagents'.

And they would never write about bingo wings. Just look at the articles on Madonna, Anne Robinson and Sarah Harding to prove that. Nor would they repeatedly offer advice on how to get rid of bingo wings. Oh no.

And you would never find the Mail calling perfectly normal, healthy looking women fat and unsightly, or catching them without make-up and holding them up as a figure of fun, as they definitely haven't with Britney Spears, Leona Lewis, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Kate Winslet (Call your stylist, Kate! Oscar winner Winslet steps out with scraped-back hair and NO make-up).

So the paper and its website that is always judging women based solely on their appearance is now wondering why some women may feel pressurised about how they look.

Imagine that.

The police and Muslims round up

The tabloid narrative about the Muslim takeover of Britain has continued with three stories in the last couple of weeks about the police doing things to be culturally sensitive, and therefore doing things which are totally objectionable.

First there was the 23 July story Muslims could get there own police force. The emphasis, of course, being on 'could'. But probably won't.

Behind this is the news that victims of crime in London have been able to ask for a Sikh police officer, a way of providing victims with support from the same religious or cultural background.

But because Sikh's arent the enemy, that isn't the news. Instead, the emphasis switches to another religion. Guess which one?

Muslim crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.

So in the same way women officers often deal with female rape victims, Sikhs might get Sikh officers and therefore Muslims might get Muslim officers supporting them. Hardly controversial, and certainly nothing like a 'Muslim police force'.

Five days later, Mail clown James Slack got his knickers in a twist with Very PC police force issues its WPCs with Muslim headscarves complete with badge for mosque visits:

Women police officers are being issued with headscarves to wear when they visit a mosque. They are expected to put the scarfs on shortly before they enter the mosque, in keeping with Islamic custom.

Once again, it seems really difficult to understand the mindset where trying to do something to avoid offending someone's religion is regarded as a sop to extremists. How many people remove hats or caps when they go into a church? So why is putting on a head covering to enter a mosque deemed unacceptable?

In fact, the police have stated that the scarves could also be used to cover the exposed shoulders of plain clothes officers should they enter a church. But again, it's only the Muslim angle that is of interest to the media. Which includes the Express, Telegraph and Times, although the latter don't pretend it's wider spread than it actually is.

But notice how the first sentence deliberately makes the issue appear to be widespread. Every female PC entering a mosque has been issued with one, it implies. Well, not quite.

A few sentences later it admits this is only being done by Avon and Somerset Police. And then a bit later:

They have already been given to seven officers, including Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, and eight community support officers who work with Muslim groups in the area.

Right, so that's only 15 that have been given out in total and only 7 to police officers. That's out of around 143,000 officers in England and Wales. That is a whopping 0.005% of them.

Clearly it's an unstoppable tide of Muslim headscarves.

Then yesterday, it was South Yorkshire Police who were in the firing line. As part of an 'In Your Shoes' exercise, three female officers spent the day in various forms of Islamic dress.

Of course, when the Daily Star put their journalists in a burkha to 'see what it's like', they call it investigative journalism.

When the police do it, it's surrender. They're a 'bunch of burkhas' engaging in 'PC madness' and - according to the, sigh, Taxpayer's Alliance - a 'politically correct gimmick'.

The Star quotes one of the cops, Deb Leonard, who said:

'I have gained an appreciation of what Muslim females experience out in public in clothing appropriate to their beliefs.'

The Mail leaves her views to the last line, replying instead on the Taxpayers Alliance and the Christian People’s Alliance. No bias there then.

In return, four Muslim women

were shown around South Yorkshire Police’s custody suite and CCTV office and learned about the day-to-day duties of a police officer.

But if PC Leonard found it useful, and if it helped improve police relations with the Muslim community in Yorkshire - if only on a small scale - where those small measures could be important, what is the problem?

Indeed, any moves towards cultural sensitivity should be applauded. So why do the tabloids find these small events so significant, and so threatening?