Smartwatch

Anyone who was a regular reader of the Vickywatch blog will see not much has changed at The Sun's Bizarre column. Vicky Newton had a habit of stealing stuff from other celebrity gossip websites, or claiming stories were exclusives when other journalists were reporting the same thing.

It seems current Bizarre editor Gordon Smart has learnt all of Newton's lazy tricks. On 11 September he wrote:

I have been concerned about the whereabouts of H from STEPS for a while. Luckily Bizarre's biggest fan, Ross Allan, from Minathort, Scotland, has found him. It's a bit of a Tragedy really. Here's the camp little Welsh fella, buried at the side of a B-road somewhere in east London.

It accompanied by this (quite funny) photo:

But it was ever so slightly funnier the day before, when the same pic was in the Popbitch newsletter and posted on their website.

And Popbitch left out the needless reference to H's sexuality.

Sorry our info was 7 years out of date

A PCC-brokered apology from Mail diarist Richard Kay:

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.

Sorry we said your relationship was in trouble (twice)

From yesterday's People:

On 25 May 2008 and 3 May 2009 we reported that Michael Essien had cheated on his long term girlfriend Nadia Buari by having numerous affairs behind her back including one in which he fathered a child.

On 3 May we reported that as a result of his behaviour Ms Buari called their wedding off.

We now accept that these allegations are untrue.

We apologise to Mr Essien for any distress or embarassment caused.

Kelly Brook in 'soft porn' - Mail wet dream rather than reality

Back in June, the Mail website, in one of its serious news items, published several pictures of Kelly Brook dancing with pornstar Riley Steele in a bikini and tried to take some moral highground over her 'tacky' 'cavorting'.

By 'cavorting' they meant 'scenes of her acting in a horror film'.

By 'tacky' they meant 'pictures of nearly naked young women that we will find any excuse to use and will get us lots of hits'.

Today, the Mail is reporting Kelly Brook's boyfriend Danny Cipriani is (apparently) upset about her appearance in the film - and it's currently their top picture story. To illustrate it, they use two of the same pictures of La Brook 'cavorting' with the pornstar, and two others of her in a bikini - all purely for their news value, of course.

This is how journalist Katie Nicholl has begun her 'story':

Kelly Brook's latest movie role has landed her in hot water with boyfriend Danny Cipriani.

England rugby star Danny, 21, is less than impressed with her new horror flick Piranha, which has been dubbed ‘soft porn’ by movie critics.

Kelly’s co-actress Riley Steele has starred in several adult movies and the film is becoming a hit on unsavoury websites.

There's lots of problems with this. For one thing, Piranha 3-D isn't actually released until March 2010 and as filming only finished in June, it seems unlikely that the film is completed (IMDB currently says it's in post-production). Rotten Tomatoes is showing no reviews currently available so it's not entirely clear who these 'movie critics' are.

In a perfect 'Mail outrage' phrase, the claim the film has become popular on 'unsavoury websites' doesn't stand up if the film isn't finished.

And what is an 'unsavoury website'? One which shamelessly publishes images of Kelly Brook and Riley Steele perhaps?

The 'soft porn' claim hardly needs challenging. It's obviously bogus. Look at the CV of director Alexandre Aja or a cast that includes Richard Dreyfuss, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd and Elisabeth Shue. Or just watch the original Piranha.

Later in the story, if you can find the sentences among all the pictures, a 'spokesperson for Kelly' says:

there are no topless scenes

Really? So it's a 'soft porn' film with 'no topless scenes'?

That would be like some high profile 'news' story with no news content.

Holiday

Yesterday's post on Richard Littlejohn got lots of attention, spreading through Twitter messages from Richard Bacon, Andrew Collins and others. It meant a huge increase in traffic to the blog, which is probably the worst time for me to take a holiday. But I am off for several days away from the Daily Mail.

After seven months of very frequent posting, a break will be good. I do hope all the new readers will look back through the archives and still be here in a week or so.

In the meantine, as this blog is constantly pointing people to dreadful journalism, here's an example of some very fine investigative journalism: Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man? by David Grann.

Tony Parsons and Jack Tweed

The news that Jack Tweed has been charged with rape gives the tabloids plenty of opportunity to talk about St Jade. Again.

It will be interesting to see what Mirror columnist Tony Parsons makes of this news as back in March he was singing the praises of the thug in his article Tweed has turned his back on Jack the lad.

In recent weeks Tweed has spent the night with three girls from the same band, and been quoted saying he felt 'sick and dirty' when he had (got caught after) a one night stand. Now he stands accused of rape.

Parsons wrote about the man who has twice been sent to prison for violence:

He is far, far more than some dumb yob and is proving it every day...Wild boys who get into a few scrapes when they are young but who grow out of it.

Two prison sentences is 'a few scrapes'? With misty eyes he continued:

I don’t know Jack Tweed yet I feel that I recognise him.

And ended his ode:

Give the lad some credit. Before our eyes, the boy has become a man.

Bless.

'Breath of fresh air' agrees with the Taliban

The Daily Quail has written a new post about Doncaster Mayor Peter Davies, who is back in the Mail for saying:

'We could all learn something about family values from the Taliban'

The Mail seems to have picked this up from Davies' remarks in an interview with the Yorkshire Post, which was reporting on the outrage caused by this statement.

But why has it taken the Mail over a week to report on these comments when they were included - although only vaguely - in Robert Hardman's profile of the Mayor last Saturday. In the Mail. Hardman wrote that Davies:

believes the Taliban could teach us a thing or two about family values.

Surely the Mail didn't gloss over this so it could focus on the hero worship?

Littlejohn doesn't do research shock

Today's Littlejohn column includes a story about Kate Pong in Shropshire, who gave birth to five babies who were named Beyone, Barack, Bobbi, Tyra and Earl. Here's the Mail's 'star' columnist:

My first reaction was that this must be a wind-up, probably placed for a bet by someone at the swine flu hotline with nothing better to do.

We rang The Times advertising department and they assured us it was genuine.

There’s no mention of a Mr Pong, or any father’s name for that matter.

If true, which I still doubt, somewhere out there in Shropshire is a single mother called Kate Pong with quins, variously named after an American pop singer, a model and the U.S. President.

You couldn’t make it up.

Why didn't he just enter Kate Pong in Google and find out from the Newport Advertiser that it's a labrador?

He says 'we' rang the Times, which suggests he couldn't even do that himself either. And notice how he even includes a snide remark about single mothers. In a story about a dog.

As Ben in Chelmsford comments:

Wow, Richard, the level of your research on "Kate Pong" tells us all we need to know about the level of your research on climate change.

Indeed, in his curious rant about John Prescott and climate change he includes the admission:

I’ve no idea what a rapporteur does

Well Google it and the first result will give you a definition Richard.

Of course, it's almost impossible to believe he doesn't know what a rapporteur is (although it is one of those dirty foreign words that come over here and take the meanings of indigenous British words) but he just wants to say that to pretend someone has got a meaningless, do-gooding job that Guardian readers do.

And he includes that idea in his latest pop at Gypsies and Travellers. St Austell Council have advertisied for a Gypsy and Traveller Support Worker. In his typically 'hilarious' and not-in-the-least cliched way, he headlines the story:

And a year’s worth of clothes pegs to the right applicant

Brilliant. How original. He repeats false claims about Gypsies getting preferential treatment and then says:

Once a group of people is classified as a vulnerable minority, there’s no limit to the largesse available - or to the jobs created for Guardian readers.

Except, this job wasn't advertised in the Guardian.

But it's an interesting use of the word 'largesse' and later suggests this is wasted money:

Salary is up to £21,306 a year.

I hope the people of St Austell remember that next time the council bleats about ‘lack of resources’.

In fact, the starting salary is only £16,799 - considerably less than the average wage of around £25,000 and a small percentage of Littlejohn's reported £800,000 salary.

In any case, a support worker for a minority group who are on the end of repeated insults and bullying by Littlejohn and his paper isn't a waste of money.

Back to his climate change rant (what is his obsession with polar bears?) and his previous claim he 'merely reports the facts'. He shows again this isn't true, by claiming:

All you need to know about the Kyoto ‘deal’ is that the rest of the world ignored it, while here in Britain it has been used as a catch-all excuse for everything from the extortionate tax on petrol to fining people £500 for putting out their dustbins on the wrong day.

As proved here the other day, that wheelie bin statement is not true, and could be proved untrue by a bit of research - which is clearly beyond him. But it's a claim that has been repeated twice in a few days now and that is how urban myths are born. Sigh.

One more comment from the messageboards that it's worth quoting because it does highlight how intellectually empty Littlejohn is. He spends 877 words discussing John Prescott's travel arrangements and his 'yeti-sized carbon footprints' but calls global warming 'nonexistent'.

As one of the comments says:

I don't get it. If you think global warming is a myth, why do you keep going on about Prescott's carbon footprint?
- Siobhan, Teddington, 4/9/2009 3:53

As further evidence of his lack of research, his column includes an apology (yes, really) that he said on Tuesday Dobwells was in Devon when it is actually in Cornwall.

Shame he will correct that, but not more serious errors such as the 'all burglars are Eastern Europeans' one.

She's back!

Yes, St Diana of Still Dead is back on the front page of the Express after a 'top QC' fuels the conspiracy theories that the Express has always believed (thanks to Richard Desmond's friendship with Mohammed Al Fayed).

But there are two important things to remember about this 'top QC', who happens to be Michael Mansfield.

1. He represented Al Fayed during the inquest into the Paris car crash.

2. He's got an autobiography to flog.

Rather than read that garbage, look instead at the statements from the Express' NUJ Chapel over the proposed cuts of 70 jobs from the Express and Star titles.

"These jobs are burning on the bonfire of the chairman's vanity by taking Tom Bower to court," an Express NUJ chapel spokesman said. "Everyone's appalled and thinks that the Express titles could sink out of sight if these cuts go through."

And particularly damning is this:

"The chapel also demands a health and safety check of the second floor of 10 Lower Thames Street to address the problems of overcrowding; proximity of staff to noisy machinery such as photocopiers; filthy toilets and prevalence of mice," the chapel said.

Richard Desmond: a pornographer and liar who shouldn't be a newspaper owner.

MailOnline publisher claims showbiz isn't that important to his site

The Press Gazette carried a few surprising statements from Martin Clarke, publisher of MailOnline, yesterday. As the Mail hit a record for monthly hits for a newspaper website (29.8 million) he:

dismissed suggestion[s] that success of the website was down simply to the volume of show business and celebrity stories it carries....

'It does annoy me that people say its all driven by search and showbiz stories because it’s actually not driven by either.'

And then the key line - and don't laugh:

'News is far more important to us that showbiz.'

Of course, the Mail's version of 'news' is deliberately misleading articles about immigrants (over and over) and stupid stories about wheelie bins.

But for Clarke to downplay the showbiz angle is disingenuous at best, at outright lie at worst.

There has clearly been a deliberate attempt to ramp up the slebs in swimwear paparazzi pictures and other Z-list gossip over the past few years. And there's no way the Mail of old would have run extended ads for (sorry, newsworthy features about photoshoots in) Playboy.

At time of writing there one of the lead Femail picture stories is a Twitter pic of someone called Kim Kardashian in her pants.

Scroll down a bit further and there is someone called Blake Lively in a 'mini skirt and plunging neckline' and current FHM covergirl Pixie Lott showing off her cleavage.

Or the story that was all over the website a day or so ago about Britney Spears and her sister showing off their 'impressive bikini bodies.'

And perhaps Clarke would like to explain precisely where the 'important news' is in the article from a week ago about the big breasted, blonde Big Brother housemate wrestling in oil in her bikini - complete with five pictures.

But remember:

'News is far more important to us that showbiz.'

Another day, another Mail immigration scare story

Britain faces fresh influx of immigrants as EU looks to 'share out' number of refugees rages the Mail in a box-ticking story that attacks both immigration policy and the EU.

Yes, those dastardly fiends in Brussels have come up with a new ruse to flood Britain with immigrants:

Britain will be asked to accept thousands more refugees as part of Brussels moves towards a single immigration and asylum policy across the EU.

Plans for a 'Joint EU Resettlement Programme' will see Britain asked to take in thousands of extra refugees a year from war zones like Somalia and Sudan.

Oh no!

Last year the EU accepted 6.7 per cent of the 65,596 refugees who were legally resettled around the world.

The Commission did not set a public target for the new programme today, but a Brussels source said the figure should be 'much closer to 20 per cent'.

So based on the word of a suspiciously anonymous source, and a series of highly speculative assumptions, the Mail decides this will mean 5,300 more immigrants coming to the UK.

Britain has been one of only ten EU countries taking part in the scheme already, and taken only 2,500 refugees over five years - so only 500 per year to the UK. In fact, this proposal has been designed to make resettlement easier and more efficient and should increase the countries taking refugees, thus sharing the burden between more EU states.

The last line of the story is left to the Home Office spokesman, who says:

'We will consider and scrutinise the details of these new proposals very carefully prior to agreement and the UK has the ability to opt out of any proposal that is not in our national interest.'

So while Britain will be 'asked' they could opt-out?

Yes - even the EU press release on the proposal reveals:

Do Member States have to participate in the 'Joint EU Resettlement Programme'?

No. The establishment of the Programme will not mean that all Member States will be obliged to take part in resettlement. Currently, Member States decide for themselves whether they want to resettle at all, and if so, which nationalities and which persons. This situation will not change. However the programme will help Member States to take more informed and efficient decisions.

Hmm. Read a more balanced version of the proposal on the BBC website.

Mail gets hysterical about wheelie bins again

The Daily Quail has asked if the Mail is suffering from split personality disorder after a series of recent changes of heart. And he may be on to something.

First thing this morning, the Mail was on its high horse about wheelie bins again - and it was the lead story on the website. Eleven hours later, this story has been reduced to a two-line link under another, which goes to show even the Mail doesn't think it's up to much.

£500 fine if you put out wheelie bin on the wrong day is, as usual, a totally misleading headline. It makes it sound as if you will be fined £500 if you put your bin out on the wrong day.

But that's a considerable exaggeration. The story says:

Families could face fines of more than £500 for breaking wheelie bin rules.

Draconian new town hall tactics mean every adult in a household is hit with a £110 fine, rather than just one.

A family including an adult couple, two children over 18 and a grandparent could, in theory, be hit with five fines totalling £550.

Although in Mail-land every house would be a married hetero couple, stay-at-home-past-18 kids AND their Granny, that's probably not that common a set-up. Indeed, the only example of someone being fined they have produced is a £440 one, and that's a student house.

In Cambridge, who the Mail accuses, a representative states that no house is fined over £110 in total.

The Mail disingenuously claims that sex offenders only have to pay fines of £285

although these are often imposed alongside other punishments.

Yes, like jail. Hardly a fair comparison.

In fact, once again, the truth of the story is revealed late on in a quote from the accused - a spokesman from Leicester City Council, which it is worth quoting at length:

'Our city wardens give letters and information to householders where bins are left outside.

'They follow up with letters or visits, to give advice and explain the need to take in bins. If the situation persists, we try to establish whether there are particular problems stopping people bringing in their bins, so we can advise or help.

'If they still fail to remove their bins, legal notices are sent to every resident over 18 at a property, warning them they have 21 days to bring in their bins or face fines.

'We issue fines only if all these steps fail to resolve the problem.'

So it's not as if you put your bin out a wrong day and you are instantly fined, as the Mail led everyone to believe. Transgressors are visited, written to, and then given 21 days to sort the problem. If someone can't be arsed to drag their own bin in off the pavement within three weeks, then there clearly is a problem.

The Leicester spokesman suggested bins left out were blocking pavements and being set on fire. As the Mail's hilariously inept Not In My Backyard anti-wheelie campaign raised the spectre of arson attacks on bins and was based largely on how ugly they think the bins are it seems curious that measures to get them off the pavements, out of sight, and possibly away from troublemakers with matches, are now a bad thing.

But one thing never changes at the Mail: ludicrous scare stories to get Middle England riled.

The Sun and Batman

Over at Tabloid Lies, Sim-O has posted on The Sun's bogus claim that Megan Fox has:

signed up to play Catwoman in the next Batman movie.

As the film hasn't been written, let alone cast, it's a big claim. And one that has been denied by sources at Warner Brothers ("It's a rumour. It's not true")

Does this ring any bells?

It should, because in a World Exclusive in December 2008 The Sun stated that Eddie Murphy had been:

signed up...[to] play The Riddler in the next Batman movie.

Hmm. Sound familiar?

The story also claimed the film was going to be released in 2010. As Batman director Chris Nolan is currently working on Inception for a release next year, that doesn't seem quite right either.

The dangers of Facebook, part 97

The Mail is claiming a woman was killed because she changed her status on Facebook from married to single.

The story reveals:

The jury heard cracks began to appear in the couple's relationship due to financial problems after he lost his job. As a result, Hayley found work as a care assistant having previously stayed at home to look after their children.

The headline - Jealous husband 'murdered mother-of-four after she changed Facebook status to single' - just blames Facebook.

So that's Facebook giving you cancer, destroying your marriage, raising your insurance premiums, rotting your children's brains, making you fail exams, putting you in a coma, causing riots, making you commit suicide, promoting gangster culture and now causing you to be stabbed and strangled.

Unlike aspirin, it seems unlikely the Mail is going to change its mind on Facebook anytime soon.

BNP repeats Mail's racist story on immigrant 'killers'

Predictably, the BNP have posted their version of the Daily Mail's disgusting One out of every five killers is an immigrant story. 'Immigration is literally killing us' is once again a complete cut-and-paste job and leaves out comments such as:

The figures showed foreigners were also more likely to be victims of murder or manslaughter.

This is buried deep in the Mail story. Why is that not a major story? Could it because the Mail might then have to deal with what causes people to hate and murder immigrants?

Incidentally, the figures the Mail uses - already proved to be bollocks by 5CC - are based on people:

accused or convicted of murder or manslaughter

The BNP makes no such distinction on this point, and although the Mail includes that caveat, it ignores it. Surely including people who were only 'accused of' a crime along with people actually 'convicted' makes the figures worthless.

Or even more worthless.