Mail loses Big Fat Quiz fight

In early January, the Daily Mail was trying to create another Sachsgate-style outrage, this time about Big Fat Quiz of the Year. It got very upset about some jokes on the post-watershed Channel 4 comedy show, and was desperately trying to get its readers to complain to Ofcom.

Although some did, there was a distinct lack of interest. As MediaGuardian reported:

Ofcom is understood to have received just a single complaint on the day the show was broadcast on Sunday 30 December, and just five more the following day.

However, after a series of Daily Mail front-page stories and the paper reprinting jokes from the programme in full on page 4 on Wednesday 2 January, complaints to Ofcom increased to 180.

On Monday, Ofcom announced it was not going to launch a full investigation:

An Ofcom spokesman said: "After careful consideration, Ofcom has taken the decision not to investigate this issue. In reaching this decision, we concluded that the programme was scheduled post watershed; it was preceded with a clear warning of 'strong language and adult humour'; and was consistent with audience expectations of a satirical quiz on Channel 4."

The Mail claimed the verdict 'shocked MPs and campaigners'.

The Mail v Big Fat Quiz of the Year

The Mail has been desperately trying to create 'Sachsgate II' over a few jokes broadcast - after the watershed - on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year:

Originally, Ofcom received only a handful of complaints by people who appeared to have actually watched the programme. After several days of campaigning by the Mail, that number reached 165. Not, exactly, the success they were clearly hoping for:

Ofcom had received five complaints by last night, but that number could quickly grow – in Sachsgate, an initial two complaints rose to nearly 45,000.

The Mail said it made:

no apology for voicing concerns shared by an overwhelming but seldom-heard majority.

So seldom-heard, indeed, that even after days of trying to get a negative reaction, only a fraction of the people who saw the programme, or had read the jokes in the Mail, bothered to make themselves heard. 

The majority of comments on the online versions of the articles were critical of the Mail's stance. When the Mail needed some 'angry' comments to back its position, it chose the 'worst rated' ones from its own website.

Ofcom told the Independent that:

the vast majority [of complaints] were made in response to the negative media coverage.

Yet when defending Jan Moir over her nasty Stephen Gately article at the Leveson Inquiry, Mail editor Paul Dacre downplayed the 22,000 complaints sent to the PCC. He said:

You keep using the phrase "a lot of people" complained about this. You realise that these are all online complaints and this is an example of how tweetering can create a firestorm within hours...Most of those people conceded they hadn't read the piece.

But the Mail expresses no such concerns about the Big Fat Quiz complaints:

it was revealed that complaints to Ofcom and the broadcaster had now reached 165.

At least 80 viewers have complained to Ofcom about the show, which featured puerile sexual jokes and innuendo just minutes after the 9pm watershed. Some 85 have complained directly to Channel 4.

Some of the Mail's anger was specifically aimed at Jonathan Ross, who the paper has targeted since Sachsgate. Ross appeared on Big Fat Quiz and his production company made it. An editorial on 2 January said:

the Mail is quite happy to be accused of being reactionary when it wonders how many more of society’s broader problems are exacerbated by such creeps as Ross.

It also argued:

It cannot, surely, be fanciful to draw a connection between the explicit four-letter outbursts of such TV role models and the epidemic of vile, coarse ‘sexting’ in our schools.

But the paper provided no evidence for such a connection.

The Mail has repeated the (what it calls) 'vile' jokes again and again - including embedding video of 'one of the controversial jokes' on its online articles. It claimed that it had to publish all the jokes so people could make up their own mind about whether they were suitable for broadcast. It said the same when it repeatedly published dozens of images and videos of scantily-clad singers on The X Factor.

The Sun, however, was more coy. It said a joke about the Queen was:

too coarse to be repeated in a family newspaper.

Oddly, the Sun positioned this story and this claim on page 3, next to a topless female model. This is also the very same 'family newspaper' that on both the 28 October 2011 and 11 November 2011 ran full page ads for 'Triple-X DVD blockbusters'.

This morning, the lead story on MailOnline was this:

The headline was clear: Jack Whitehall could be dropped as a presenter at the National TV Awards. But deep in the story, there was this giveaway sentence:

A spokesman for the awards last night said the comedian had been booked and would be presenting an award as planned.

Despite that, MailOnline decided to run it as a major story implying the opposite.

The Independent revealed a few hours later:

Kim Turberville, creator and executive producer of the NTA, told The Independent: "Contrary to spurious reports earlier today, I would like to confirm that there has been no crisis summit over Jack Whitehall’s invitation to present an award at this year’s National Television Awards."

"We are very much looking forward to welcoming him on January 23 for our live show.”

The final word, for now, should go to the Mail, which said - apparently without irony - in its 2 January 2013 editorial:

Indeed, a New Year seems an appropriate time to take stock of what is deemed acceptable in popular culture – and ask what effects a constant diet of filth, misogyny and casual contempt for the vulnerable may have on impressionable young minds.

Mail on Sunday attacks BBC for word they didn't actually broadcast

Last month, an attempt by the Mail on Sunday to attack the BBC (over Tim Henman's Wimbledon fee) backfired when they were forced to withdraw the inaccurate story a week later.

But they're never going to give up attacking the BBC so they have dug up what journalists Chris Hastings and Steve Farrell call a 'decency row' involving a joke on a Radio 4 comedy show. The paper thinks this is such an important story, it's their front page lead:

The BBC was at the centre of a new decency row last night after ruling that the most offensive word in English is acceptable for broadcast.

The Corporation decided that the word – most abhorrent to women – has lost much of its 'shock value' and is tolerable for radio and television.

An executive who cleared it for daytime transmission on flagship Radio 4 even said it would 'delight' many of its audience, who would 'love it’.

Firstly, there was no decency row 'last night'. The twelfth paragraph of the article reveals that the joke in question was broadcast on an episode of The News Quiz in October last year. At the time, a retired newspaper executive complained to the BBC. After going through the complaints process, and various appeals, his complaint was rejected - and so he seems to have sent all the correspondence to the Mail on Sunday.

According to the article, the BBC has decided the c-word is 'tolerable for radio'. It was 'cleared for daytime transmission', the paper says.

They bolster their case with critical quotes from MP John Whittingdale:

'The vast majority of people still regard this an offensive term and it should not have been broadcast at this time.'

And, inevitably, from Mediawatch-UK:

'This is still an offensive term and is in fact one of the only truly offensive terms we have left. It should not have been broadcast at this time.'

All of which very strongly suggests the c-word was said on this show. Indeed, the paper explains:

The Mail on Sunday feels it is necessary to the reporting of the story to repeat the joke, and apologises in advance for any offence caused.

OK. Everyone sitting down, braced for the shock?

Miss [Sandi] Toksvig said: 'It's the Tories who have put the 'n' into cuts.'

No!

Wait.

What?

So the word wasn't actually broadcast on The News Quiz, then? No.

But didn't the article say the the BBC had made a 'ruling [that] the word is acceptable for broadcast'?

It takes the Mail on Sunday eleven paragraphs to repeat the joke and up until that point it very clearly implies the c-word was actually uttered at 6.30pm. It wasn't.

So rude word not actually broadcast on radio. They decided to hold the front page for that.

Yet the final line of the article might just give away what the paper is up to:

Ofcom said its own research confirmed the word was still regarded as highly offensive, adding that it would investigate any complaint made to it.

So despite the Mail calling Ofcom 'toothless' and 'pathetic' on Saturday, the Mail on Sunday appears keen to get its readers to complain to the regulator - particularly because the BBC will be on the receiving end.

Elsewhere in the paper, Peter Hitchens also has his say about this (non) issue in his column. He writes:

Every few weeks a reader writes to me to tell me that the BBC has brushed aside a reasonable complaint. They send me the fat-bottomed, complacent responses, and they share with me their frustration that, in the end, the BBC is accountable to nobody.

He accuses the BBC of replying to complaints with:

smug, unhelpful responses

and:

crass, unresponsive statements

Clearly, when it comes to dealing with complaints, the BBC needs to take lessons from the Mail, the Mail on Sunday, and their owners, Associated Newspapers.

For example, Michael Parkinson said:

'I believe that the persistent delaying tactics of the Daily Mail were both unattractive and unworthy of a national newspaper...it should not have taken nine months nor been so difficult for the editor to apologise promptly.'

Or how about the Mail's response when Richard Littlejohn claimed:

Most robberies in this country have been carried out by Eastern European gangs.

They didn't reply with crass or smug statements to a reader who complained - because for six weeks, they didn't reply at all. And when they did, they tried to every tactic they could think of to dilute the wording of the apology.

Then there was Richard Wilson's lengthy effort to get a clarification from the Mail over a column on asbestos. Wilson wrote:

After a delay of several weeks, the PCC forwarded me a dismissive response from the Daily Mail's executive managing editor, Robin Esser. While acknowledging some minor errors, Esser insisted that the disputed HSE study did indeed back up Booker's views on asbestos. The fact that the HSE had put out a statement explicitly rebutting this merely proved that "those responsible for HSE press releases are similarly unable to grasp the significance of findings published by their own statisticians". For good measure, Esser accused me (falsely, just in case you're wondering) of being "allied to a well-organised and well-funded commercial lobby", who "stand to benefit financially" from the "anti-asbestos campaign".

He adds:

More time-consuming exchanges followed, with long gaps in between, while we awaited a response from the Daily Mail. In the end we won, sort of...But to get even this far has taken seven months, and a substantial time investment, while the Daily Mail seems to have been able to drag the process out with impunity.

What about the experience of Juliet Shaw:

they stood by their article and told me that they would not enter into any further correspondence with me and considered the matter closed.

And Cherie Blair:

Associated Newspapers failed to provide a full and unequivocal apology, or even to give a substantive response to her complaint

And Sophie Dahl:

she is seeking aggravated damages, in part, as the paper failed to apologise to her or respond to a letter of complaint.

Dismissive, unhelpful and accountable to nobody, indeed...

New year, same old BBC-hating Mail

On Saturday 2 January the Daily Mail made clear it had no intention of changing anything for the new year.

Bullying the BBC, claiming Muslims are taking over, and a lack of good journalism were all present and correct in Lynda La Plante attacks BBC, saying Corporation would take a Muslim boy's script over hers - a classic headline to get Mail readers drooling.

Factually, the article is accurate. In an Telegraph interview, La Plante did say:

'If my name were Usafi Iqbadal and I was 19, then they’d probably bring me in and talk,' said La Plante. 'But... it’s their lack of respect that really grates on me.'
...
La Plante, who is 63, said: 'If you were to go to the BBC and say to them, ‘Listen, Lynda La Plante’s written a new drama, or I have this little Muslim boy who's just written one’, they’d say: ‘Oh, we’d like to see his script.’'

Her use of 'little Muslim boy' is incredibly patronising and to criticise the BBC for looking for new talent makes no sense.

But of course, her words were carefully chosen. It doesn't take much to work out why she choose 'Muslim' rather than someone from another religion.

To be fair to both the Telegraph and the Mail, they didn't stick the counter-quote, from the BBC controller of drama, at the end of their stories. It is quite revealing:

Ben Stephenson said: 'I don’t quite understand these points because Lynda had two pieces in development with us. She has one piece at the moment, and one piece that we paid fully for the script development.'

So she's involved with two projects at the BBC and is complaining she can't get noticed at the BBC because of all the 'little Muslim boys'. That makes perfect sense.

The problem is that the Mail didn't question whether what she said was even accurate, and that is why it is shoddy journalism. In the Independent, Susie Mesure spoke to several Muslim writers who were rightfully dismissive of La Plante. Sarfraz Mansoor said:

'I would love to meet the Muslim writers whose output is currently clogging up the television schedules: can she name any of these mythical individuals or are her comments simply a headline-grabbing way to yet again bash the BBC and blame Muslims?'

It's an obvious question, but one the Mail had no interest in asking.

And the people leaving comments got the point exactly as the Mail intended:


And all voted positive. Whereas this retort was massively rejected:


A few days later, the Mail noted (twice) that the BBC Trust was to undertake a review of its science coverage over claims it is biased on issues such as climate change.

The Mail, of course, has outstanding science coverage. Just a few days ago, it published an article critical of previous Mail health articles. EvidenceMatters has pointed out a recent miracle milkshake to tackle Alzheimer's article bears little resemblance to reality. And in August last year, Mail Science Editor Michael Hanlon pointed out:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

The Mail's 'Case Against the Corporation' includes the following on wi-fi:

The BBC exaggerated the dangers of wireless computer networks in schools needlessly panicking parents, children and teachers.

Not that the Mail would ever publish scaremongering articles about wi-fi:

• Suspend wi-fi in schools, says union chief following reports it causes ill-health
• 'Wi-fi networks must be removed from schools to stop children getting cancer,' teachers insist
• Wireless laptops 'may harm children'
• Wireless technology made me sick
• Wifi internet 'poses a health risk for children'
• Wi-fi networks to be examined for potential risks to children
• The classroom 'cancer risk' of wi-fi internet
• Children being used as 'guinea pigs' in mass Wi-Fi experiment, warn teachers

And those are just from the first page of the 90 results for wi-fi found on the Mail's site.

On climate change, the Mail says:

Critics say the BBC has gone beyond reporting the science of climate change...

This from a paper that has Richard Littlejohn droning on (and on) about polar bears and how climate change isn't happening, and providing not one iota of actual scientific evidence to back up his argument. In his 8 January column, he said the difference between weather and climate was purely a semantic one, and that because it was a bit nippy in his Florida home at the moment, global warming can't possibly be happening.

Other columnists have spoken of climate change 'hysteria' and 'superstition'. This is, apparently, just 'reporting the science'.

Most astonishing of all, the Mail draws attention to the BBC coverage on MMR. With a straight-face, it says:

Some critics say the BBC gave too much publicity to anti-measles, mumps and rubella vaccine campaigners at the height of the MMR-autism debate ten years ago.

Last April, Editor Paul Dacre tried to pretend the Mail never had a problem with MMR, dismissing that as an 'urban myth'. The articles listed here prove otherwise, a list which includes the fairly unequivocal:

Vaccine is poisonous substance

Oh, and there was this:
But don't expect the Mail to launch a review of its science coverage any time soon.

Next, the Mail was giving prominent coverage to 143 complaints that had been made about the Christmas episode of Doctor Who.

Tardis fans see red over Matt Smith's ginger joke explained:

It was an unexpected introduction to the 11th Timelord... and has prompted a flood of complaints from viewers. ‘I’m still not ginger’ Dr Who announced following his regeneration at the end of the New Year’s Day special which saw Matt Smith, 27, replace David Tennant, 38, as the TV's most famous time-traveller.

Unfortunately, the off-kilter comment was perceived by many as a sign of relief from the new arrival. As a result, it quickly led to complaints from outraged viewers that Dr Who and, by proxy the BBC, were anti-ginger.

Parents of red-headed children were particularly upset by what they perceived to be an insult. They claimed the programme, which was the second part of a Christmas special and was seen by 11 million viewers, would encourage victimisation.

The remark 'I'm still not ginger' was actually an expression of disappointment, a running-joke from David Tennant's first appearance as the Doctor ('Aww, I wanted to be ginger. I’ve never been ginger.')

So the 143 complainers simply misunderstood a joke. And it takes the Mail a long time to point this out (in the seventh paragraph and below a photo) because it wants to make it seem like the BBC is in real trouble again.

And, in the same vein, one day later, this:


The news that women have boobs shouldn't really be a shock to the Mail, given the amount of half-naked women it has on its website every day. Indeed, they had no problem showing Hugh Grant on TV with this bikini-clad woman.

The Mail, however, is highlighting this one just because it is the BBC. And they have usefully taken three screenshots so you can see just how much cleavage was on show.

Which, incidentally, was not very much.

One pic includes a ludicrously pervy caption:


And notice the 'enlarge' option, just in case you want a closer look at 'the very top part of her cleavage'.

With some class, Reid herself replied:

'...after breastfeeding three children, I'm amazed that people think I still have a cleavage worth complaining about.'

There is the odd anti-Reid comment, including the staggering:


But most of the 233 comments the Mail has allowed to be published rightly point out that these complaints - and the Mail's story - is pathetic.

So how can the headline claim she is 'under fire'. Here's how it goes.

Mail hack needs a story attacking the BBC. She scans the Points of View messageboard on the BBC website, finds some wafer-thin complaint about a bit of cleavage and turns it into a 'BBC under fire' story.

Well, a non-story.

A non-story that was lead picture story on the Mail website for many hours.

And the Mail hack in question? Georgina Littlejohn. She really is her father's daughter. The quality of her stories and her writing is just as dismal as his. Her recent gems - all of which are the most inane celebrity bullshit imaginable - include actor has a beard, former popstar goes to Tesco, current pop star smokes a cigarette, another pop star drinks a smoothie, singer has two hour plane delay and actor kisses girlfriend.

And when not writing mindless drivel, she's writing mindless drivel that is nasty and petty, such as this attack on Lucy Davis, who Littlejohn abuses simply because she had the audacity to emerge from an eleven-hour Trans-Atlantic flight without make-up and posh clothes on:

A word of advice for any female celebrity getting off a long-haul flight - don't forget to apply your make-up first... she didn't look too happy to be facing the flashbulbs dressed in unflattering casual clothes and sporting blotchy skin and bags under her eyes. The only thing she had appeared to have applied to her face was a smudge of lip balm which was smeared haphazardly across her lips.

It's typically charming stuff from the Littlejohn clan, isn't it?

But back to the BBC and, of course, Jonathan Ross.

The idea that Paul Dacre and many other people at the Mail would be smiling with smug satisfaction at forcing Ross out of his job is a horrible thought.

Enough has been written about Ross' decision to quit the BBC already. Lots of it in the Mail. They were desperate to rub it in. He'd been 'humiliated' and 'humbled', he was 'infantile' and 'immature'. They made it clear the BBC had got fed up with the criticism Ross attracted, thus patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

With his Radio 2 show being pre-recorded in the wake of the overblown Sachsgate affair and the Mail making excessive fuss about any risque joke or comment Ross made and using it to attack the BBC, it's little wonder he had had enough. And, with the BBC likely to come under scrutiny in an election year, his statement that:

'It's a good time for me to move on and probably not a bad time for them either'

seemed understandable. But the Mail wouldn't have that. They just wanted to imply that Ross quit because he couldn't get his hands on any more of your money:


You can't help but hope he does as much to offend the Mail in the remaining six months of his contract as possible.

Needless to say, there have been a staggering number of comments on the staggering number of stories about Ross in the last couple of days. Curiously, the Mail have not even been moderating these comments. Why not?

When Jan Moir wrote another woeful column on 1 January (about David Tennant), comments were moderated and after 154 had been published - most of them lambasting the endlessly uninteresting Moir - comments were no longer accepted.

But when it comes to Ross, moderation is switched off and over 1,000 comments are published, the majority highly critical of him and the BBC.

You would almost think that was deliberate so as many insults could be thrown at him as possible.

Some of them are worth highlighting, because it's not just him that cops it, but also his kids (aged 12, 15 and 18):


And, worst of the lot:


Sachsgate was about people making poor-taste comments to someone based on something a family member did.

Good to see that the Mail and its readers are still outraged by such behaviour...

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...