Express front page headline on scrapping Britain dismissed as 'total fantasy'

The front page of today's Express claims there is a 'EU plot to scrap Britain' and that Eurocrats want to 'wipe us off the map'.

Yes, really:

Critical comment seems almost pointless...

However, this 'exclusive' story from Macer Hall 'reveals':

Senior Eurocrats are secretly plotting to create a super-powerful EU president to realise their dream of abolishing Britain, we can reveal.

A covert group of EU foreign ministers has drawn up plans for merging the jobs currently done by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

Hall doesn't really explain how this merger - if it happens - would actually lead to Britain being 'scrapped'. He doesn't name the 'senior Eurocrats' who want to 'abolish Britain'. Precise details of this 'plot' are hard to find within the article.

But it does mention that this new post will be:

a modern-day equivalent of the European emperor envisaged by Napoleon Bonaparte or a return to the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne that dominated Europe in the Dark Ages.

The article includes quotes from three anti-EU politicians, but nothing from any official EU spokesperson. Reader comments on the Express website include: 'Hitler would be proud', 'The rise of the anti-Christ and few recognize it' and 'Quite simply this is an act of war'.

There's also one from the European Commission Representative in London, who says:

Quite simply, this article is nonsense.

As other posters point out, the EU has no power or desire to "scrap Britain"...or Germany, or France, or Lithuania. Merging the Barroso and Van Rompuy posts would require UK agreement. And it is total fantasy to leap from speculation on this to ludicrous claims about scrapping nation states. EU treaties are decided by national leaders, with each having a veto, and EU law is decided by national Ministers and MEPs, not by mythical bogeyman Brussels bureaucrats.

In January, Express editor Hugh Whittow told the Leveson Inquiry (under oath):

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

Express: 'ban migrants'

The front page headline on today's Daily Express screams:


'Britain must ban migrants'.

Macer's Hall article goes on to favourably report the words of Labour peer Lord Glasman, which were published by the Telegraph yesterday. Shouldn't the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' have got the interview first, rather than treating it as front page news a day later?

Here's what the Telegraph reported:

Glasman has previously accused New Labour of lying about the extent of immigration. Now he goes further, arguing – in terms more radical than the Conservative front bench would dare use – that Britain should renegotiate the rules on European workers and freeze inward migration for EU and non-EU citizens, except where employers or universities make a case for a specific, skilled individual.

"We've got to reinterrogate our relationship with the EU on the movement of labour. The EU has gone from being a sort of pig farm subsidised bloc... to the free movement of labour and capital. It's legalistic, it's administrative, and it's no good. So I think we've got to renegotiate with the EU.

His call is to restrict immigration to necessary entrants such as highly skilled leaders, especially in vocational skills. "We might, for example, bring in German masters, as we did in the 15th and 16th centuries to renew guilds."

But exemptions should be made on a case-by-case basis? "Yes. We should absolutely do that... Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first." Even if that means stopping immigration completely for a period? "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

So although Glasman does say a temporary halt to immigration might be necessary, he seems to contradict that by saying that he does still want to allow in people with specific skills and that:

we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed.

Yet the Express have turned 'restrict immigration to necessary entrants' and 'more generous and friendly to those who are needed' into 'ban migrants' - whatever that might mean.

But this headline isn't really about Glasman's words. It's about what the Express thinks and wants. It's in much the same vein as their 'Keep out, Britain is full up' front page from 23 September 2009 and their use of 'ethnics' in July 2010, and it's insidious stuff.

Express continues to lie about the EU

Monday's Daily Express front page claimed:


Macer Hall's article began:

Fury erupted last night after a European Union plot to “carve up Britain” by ­setting up a cross-Channel region was exposed.

The Express implied that this 'plot' was something new (albeit, as Roy Greenslade pointed out, slightly less new than when a similar story appeared in the Mail two days before). Yet mid-way through the article, after the inevitable quotes from UKIP and the TaxPayers' Alliance, Hall admitted:

Arc Manche was formally launched six years ago to forge closer links between local councils in southern English counties with their counterparts in northern France.

In fact, the Arc Manche network has been around since 1995.

So the Express eventually stated it's about 'forging closer links between councils' rather than a 'plot' to 'merge UK with France'. But how many Express readers will read - and believe - that after the screaming headline?

The EU's Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, has written to the Express to clarify the position:

We are as surprised as your readers to hear that your newspaper believes the EU wishes to merge Britain and France. The suggestion that the “EU wants to merge UK with France”, 2nd May, is absurd, and of course, untrue.

There is no proposal to create a new cross-channel region. What exist (and have done for 10 years) are a number of cross-border programmes aimed at things like boosting jobs and looking after the environment.

A similar note was also sent to the Daily Star, who ran a similar article under the ludicrous headline 'Clowns plan to turn us French'.

Today, the Express was at it again, claiming on the front page:


'Now we must fly the EU flag on our public buildings'. Really?

It's Macer Hall again:

Scores of public buildings around the country are being ordered to fly the blue-and-gold European Union flag to mark the occasion next Monday.

Officials will be expected to ensure the flag remains hoisted for a week, with a swingeing fine from Brussels threatened for those that disobey.

The Daily Star's version claimed:

Eurocrats were last night facing a revolt over a bid to force Britain to celebrate “Europe Day” next week.

Scores of public buildings are being ordered to fly the European Union flag to mark the occasion.

Officials will be expected to ensure it remains hoisted for a week from Monday. And those that disobey could be fined.

Or not, according to a letter sent to the Express from Jonathan Scheele, Head of European Commission Representation in the UK and Michael Shackleton, Head of European Parliament Information Office in the UK:

Regarding your front page of today, only 2 buildings in the UK are expected to fly the European flag for Europe Day and the Commission would not fine countries that did not do so. The rules that make this provision were passed in 2006 by all EU countries, including the UK. No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May though some may choose to do so. Some schools want to do something to mark the day and ask us for ideas. We send these purely on demand and they in no way constitute “instructions”.

According to them the Editor of the Express, Hugh Whittow, has refused to publish their letter, thus failing to give a right of reply to those his paper has accused. And, of course, there's no way of complaining to the PCC since Richard Desmond withdrew from the self-regulatory system.

So the Express' campaign against the EU continues.

In March, the paper ran a front page headline claiming 'Cars face ban from all cities...another plan forced on us by crazy EU'. As Minority Thought blogged at the time, it wasn't true. Now these two stories within a few days.

What will the paper falsely claim the EU has banned/forced on us next?

If the cap fits...

The Express' latest not-quite-true front page is this:


Who is this 'we'?

Among the very many offensive things the Express has ever written, suggesting 'we' all agree with them on immigration is right up there.

If, however, the 'we' is the Express, then maybe 'Labour' would have a point. If they'd said any such thing. But they haven't. Indeed, they specifically avoided saying it.

The paper illustrates the article with a picture of some women in niqabs because that's the impression the Express wants to give about immigration.

The story is back to the so-called immigration plot and the draft (and all this stuff was only in the draft) document that has resulted in so much coverage. None of this actually made it through to the final version.

As Anton has said in his post on this front page:

you could say it wasn't included because it's a big secret, and it was all a massive plot by Labour. Or you could say it wasn't included because it was rejected. Which one do you think the Mail and Express have gone for?

The Mail had already had this as the lead on its website for a long time on Monday. It also came under a misleading headline - which has already been changed once (Secret Labour plan to increase immigration said public's opposition was 'racist').

Back in the Express, Macer Hall - responsible for that euro nonsense two weeks ago - lays on the hyperbole:

Labour dismissed the British public’s widespread opposition to mass immigration as 'racism'...

But ministers were urged to ignore voters' 'racist' views...

But demonstrating thinly disguised contempt for much of the British public, the document said that this opposition was linked to racist attitudes.

So what did the draft document actually say? From the Mail:

'Recent research shows that anti-immigrant sentiment is closely correlated with racism rather than economic motives,' the authors wrote.

'Education and people's personal exposure to migrants make them less likely to be anti-migrant.

'The most negative attitudes are found among those who have relatively little direct contact with migrants, but see them as a threat.'

Which is not 'Labour' calling everyone a racist. It is the authors - possibly civil servants - quoting 'research' which suggests there is a link between anti-immigrant views and racism. But it does not say everyone who expresses a concern about immigration is a racist.

As the Express claims on the front page.

And look again at that last sentence:

'The most negative attitudes are found among those who have relatively little direct contact with migrants, but see them as a threat.'

Here's what Express Editor Peter Hill told a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in January 2007, when asked if he has personally met any asylum seekers:

'I have not. I have met representatives of the Romanian Government on a similar and associated topic but I have not met any asylum seekers - or I do not think so.'

Given the anti-immigration scaremongering the Express regularly pumps out, Hill's words would seem to prove the draft report was right on that point.

And you have to wonder how a life-long journalist in his early 60s (as he was then) had never met an asylum seeker in his life, and yet believes they deserve the coverage his paper gives them.

By a strange coincidence, Migrationwatch's Andrew Green once said there were no immigrants in the village where he lived, although unsurprisingly, coming from him, this wasn't quite accurate.

And if the Express wants to get outraged about drafts that weren't actually used, perhaps they could remind their readers about the 'Daily Fatwa' page that sister paper the Daily Star were planning to run a few years back.

More front page lies from the Express

On Thursday 11 February, the Express ran the headline: 'Now we have to bail out the euro'.

It could hardly be more unequivocal, or more appealing to an anti-European paper such as the Express.

And here's how the article, by Macer Hall, begins:

British taxpayers could be forced to pay up to £3.5billion a year towards bailing out the crisis-hit Greek economy, it emerged last night.

'Could be' bailing out Greece? But that makes it sound as if the headline - 'Now we have to bail out the euro' - is misleading. On two counts.

Surely not? Hall goes on:

And it is understood that German President Angela Merkel is to press for all EU states, including Britain, to be ready to provide billions of pounds in emergency debt aid.

Which is strange given that Merkel:

mounted stiff resistance tonight to any swift bailout of Greece.

Moreover, the Guardian reported:

Greece tonight vehemently denied that it had gone to Brussels with begging bowl in hand to resolve its debt crisis, insisting there was no question of a 'bail-out'.

In other words 'we' are not bailing out the 'euro'.

Two days after that, the Express served up Zero bin waste or get fine, with free chocolate and fish and chips.

This one was written by Martyn Brown, who suggested that as Britain has had some snow, there can't possibly be global warming, so you know it's going to have some intellectual rigour behind it.

He writes:

An army of snooping bin police will inspect the rubbish of millions of families under a sinister Government plan to create 'zero waste' in Britain.

Squads of spies will carry out dawn raids to check that householders are not throwing out any rubbish and recycling it all instead...

The cloak-and-dagger crackdown from the so-called 'Talibin' has been launched in six pilot areas, the Daily Express can reveal, and could eventually apply to virtually all UK households.

When Brown says the 'Daily Express can reveal' what he actually means is that this was announced in a Defra press release in October 2009 (although the scheme began back in 2008) Hardly 'cloak-and-dagger'.

You would think he'd be able to get it right after four months. After all, if the Express is going to put a story that old on the front page, you'd think they'd get the facts straight.

They haven't. At all.

The impression Brown gives is that your wheelie bins are going to be inspected in dawn raids by people just like the Taliban. And:

People failing to comply with the strict rules face hefty fines.

Unfortunately for the Express, it falls apart at the end of the article. A Defra spokesman is quoted explaining what's really happening:

'This project does not involve fines for householders who fail to recycle and it does not involve going through individual bins.'

So how did Brown, who is meant to be a journalist, get that quote and think that meant there were going to be people issuing fines after rummaging through your bins?

And how did the Express dream up the front page headline 'Zero bin waste or get fine'?

And why does the PCC let the Express get away with such a blatant lie splashed across its front page?

Exclusive: Express 'exclusive' is rubbish

Having criticised the Express before for a complete lack of anything even remotely related to an interesting or important exclusive, today's page four story looked promising. The headline even began with the word 'exclusive':

Exclusive: Another rubbish idea, lessons for immigrants on how to empty bins

This headline seems to highlight the problem of Express staff shortages and their sacking of subs. Because surely if these 'lessons' do exist (they don't), they're about filling bins, not emptying them.

But is it a real exclusive? The Express say:

The astonishing lessons were revealed in a confidential Whitehall document obtained by the Daily Express.

Perhaps they are on to something. Or perhaps not. Because that 'confidential Whitehall document' appears to have been on the Communities and Local Government Department website since early July.

'Exclusive' indeed.

Macer Hall's story begins:

Immigrants are to be taught how to recycle their rubbish in lessons paid for by the public.

A typical opening gambit to make Express readers choke on their cornflakes. But it's an interesting use of the phrase 'the public'. Why? Because much later in the story Hall makes clear the money for these projects is from a:

£70million fund – paid for by a £50 levy on migrant workers arriving in the UK.

So it is services for immigrants paid for by migrants. Why should anyone else care?

Hall then goes through the document and picks out some of the projects in an entirely selective - and dishonest - way. For example:

Sheffield has been awarded £400,000 to increase “awareness of waste disposal” among its immigrants.

And here is what that money is actually for:

Housing and Waste by increasing landlord accreditation and increased awareness of waste disposal and storage. Health by increasing immunisation and benefiting child wellbeing.

Which is slightly different, and Hall forgets to mention the latter half entirely. He also highlights:

Thamesmead, Greenwich and Bexley councils in London have together been handed £145,000 for the “training of community members to liaise with new arrivals on rights and responsibilities regarding recycling/waste disposal”.

But the full description is:

Police (reducing ASB), LA environmental services (refuse and recycling), LA Housing services through the training of community members to liaise with new arrivals on rights and responsibilities regarding recycling/waste disposal, legal responsibilities regarding anti-social behaviour and how to develop a sense of citizenship through participating in community life.

So the claim that:

£1.3million from the Government’s Migration Impact Fund is being spent on the lessons

is wrong because there are clearly other aspects to each project - such as health and anti-social behaviour.

And the idea that migrants are going to be sent to 'lessons' doesn't stand up either. Take another project which Hall highlights, where:

Cambridgeshire County Council is to get £75,000 target landlords to reduce complaints concerning noise and rubbish.

This isn't inaccurate as a description of the project, but it doesn't even remotely sound like 'lessons in emptying bins'. Or filling them. Or whatever.

There are the obligatory comments from the Opposition, the Taxpayer's Alliance ('it is absurd...' etc) and someone called Doretta Cocks from the Campaign for Weekly Waste Collection, whoever they are (apparently, some tinpot Campaign Against Political Correctness-type obsessives who do little but give out quotes at the drop of a hat, and have an equally ugly website).

So it's not an exclusive, because it's two months old; it's not a confidential document, because it's been on a government website for two months; there aren't any 'lessons'; the figures are bogus and the descriptions half-truths. And the headline is nonsense.

In other words: total rubbish.

Mail continues lottery/Gypsy stories, but snubs Migrationwatch (shock!)

Following on from the previous two, the Mail has decided it needed to have a third article about Big Lottery Fund money going to Gypsy projects.

The headline is interesting: We must reclaim National Lottery funds for the good causes WE say are worthy.

So there you have it. 'WE' clearly does not include Gypsies - or indeed, immigrants, it becomes clear later. This rant is written by Harry Phibbs and begins:

Gypsies have been handed millions from the Big Lottery Fund to help them subvert planning laws - money that is supposed to be for ‘good causes.’

It's tiresome to point out for a third time why this isn't the case, but it seems the Mail wants to keep repeating something until people believe it is true. He goes through some of the same Littlejohn cliches about Gypsies being 'filthy' and 'criminals'.

He goes through the usual suspects of what he deems unworthy causes, attack an award of £33,000 for the Gender Trust for, he says:

for transsexuals and people who are ‘uneasy about their sexuality’

Why is this a problem? Apart from the fact Phibbs and the Mail don't like anyone who isn't heterosexual? Just read the Gender Trust's 'Who we are':

The Trust is a listening ear, a caring support and an information centre for anyone with any question or problem concerning their gender identity, or whose loved one is struggling with gender identity issues. The Trust is also recognised as an authoritative centre for professional people who encounter gender identity related issues in the course of their work. In particular this group includes employers, human resource officers, health workers and information services.

How is that not a 'good cause'? He then turns his focus on immigration, attacking the

£340,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns - a group not concerned with assisting the welfare of asylum seekers but campaigning for the overthrow of Britain's asylum laws.

In fact, this is simply not true. As the name of the organisation suggests, they are concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers. From their website:

The Coalition lobbies to amend law and practice which leads to unjust or inhumane deportations, and assists in mounting campaigns against such legislation.

That is 'overthrowing asylum laws'?

And then Phibbs fibs again:

So we have had a Lottery Grant of £700,000 to the Student Action for Refugees which campaigned to hound out Professor David Coleman from Oxford University because of his links with the Migration Watch think tank.

Now while it is obvious that the Mail would take umbrage at anyone who might not like Migrationwatch, this statement is misleading. The grant was clearly not for STAR to campaign against David Coleman but was for other activities - as the Mail pointed out in 2007:

The funding is specifically to "raise awareness of refugee and asylum issues, campaign on behalf of refugees and offer practical support to refugees" and to support "local groups...to set up and implement practical projects for students to work with local refugee organisations and create links to their local communities".

While there was a petition circulated, it appears this was never submitted to the university. And one of the other concerns STAR had about Coleman was because of his involvement in the Galton Institute, which was formerly known as the Eugenics Society, and how that linked to his work with Migrationwatch. Coleman protested his innocence although referring to 'Continental excesses' may not have been the wisest choice of words when referring to what the Nazis were up to in the field of eugenics.

Coleman popped up again on 10 August with the latest press release and briefing paper from his friends at Migrationwatch, which was largely based on his work.

This is one of the strangest Migrationwatch efforts for a while because, although dated 10 August, it was not reported on until the 12th by the Express and Star and does not appear to have been picked up by the Mail at all.

Is this a first? Was the Migrationwatch paper really that hopeless that even the Mail and Sun ignored it? Well yes, it was.

UK face a new flood of migrants, warns watchdog was the Express' headline, the Star went with Britain faces new wave of migrants. The claim a UK population in 2050 of 80 million - although Migrationwatch do not actually use that figure at all. Macer Hall's article begins:

Britain faces a colossal wave of immigration over the next 40 years because of predicted population explosions in Africa and Asia, a report warns today.

The influx would send the country’s population soaring well over 77million unless radical action is taken to tighten border controls, experts say.

'Flood', 'colossal wave', 'influx' - all good emotive words for the anti-immigration lobby. The Star added another:

Britain faces an immigration timebomb because of soaring populations in third world countries.

As with the Telegraph the other day, 'timebomb' implies something dangerous and threatening. Their editorial Foreigners flood to UK is even worse, adding the word 'swamped' before edging very close to BNP-style rhetoric:

Influential think tank MigrationWatch reckons we’ll be swamped by millions more foreigners in the coming years.

Numbers are set to soar, according to world population trends.

By 2050 an extra 17million people will be living here.

It will push our already overstretched public services to breaking point.

We cannot allow these huge numbers of immigrants to continue to swan in unchecked.

Our health, housing and council services are struggling to deal with those already here.

And with a fresh wave facing us from the developing world, they could collapse altogether.

It’s time for the government to cut the numbers coming in.

It’s time to close our borders.

Britain is full.

The problems with all that are so obvious, it's not worth pointing them out. But what is all this based on? Back to the Migrationwatch report, and more importantly the footnote at the end:

This paper is largely a precis of The shape of things to come: world population to 2050.The data have been updated. By Professor D.A. Coleman. A contribution to the Engelsberg Seminar 2005. Published by the Ax::son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm, 2007, in Empire and the Future World Order, pp. 209 230.

Right - so the figures are reheated from a few years ago?

In summary, the paper suggests that since a UN World Population Report for 2050 has shown a big increase in the population of countries where Britain currently receives lots of visa and asylum applications, there is going to be this huge increase in Britain's population, taking it to 80 million.

At which point, one questions leaps out - if this UN Report data is used to claim as fact the population of other countries, why not just look up what it says the population of the UK will be in 2050 and be done with it?

Well because if you look at the latest (2008) Revision (p.62) it states the UK population in 2050 will be...umm...72.3million.

Which isn't quite 80 million. Or even 77 million. It wouldn't have need complicated calculations or sleight of hand. And would have been much easier than using all the graphs which mean nothing.

Macer Hall deliberately misleads on asylum cases

Two days ago, the UK Border Agency's chief executive, Lin Homer gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. It was mainly newsworthy, to the tabloids, for the Nigerian jail story.

But she also gave an update on the progress with the so-called asylum legacy cases. This news has finally reached the Desmond papers - and swiftly been massaged into something not very accurate.

Here's how it was reported by the Guardian:

197,500 of the 450,000 cases had been resolved by the end of May. Of those resolved, a third (62,000 people) had gained permission to stay in the UK. For 27,500, removal directions were issued.

However, a caveat should be added to that from the Home Office's UK Border Agency website:

We have previously estimated that there are between 400,000 and 450,000 electronic and paper records, but many of them are duplicates or errors. So this figure is not the number of asylum applicants awaiting a decision.

Therefore, as there are not 450,000 cases, you couldn't just say 'well, as a third of the resolved cases have resulted in leave to remain, we'll divide 450,000 by three and say that's how many are staying'.

Unless you were a moronic, lazy, anti-immigrant journalist. In which case, you already have.

So in its story '150,000 asylum seekers to stay' the Star claims: 'Nearly 150,000 asylum seekers will stay in Britain because staff cannot handle the paperwork'. Which is a bizarrely worded first paragraph, using incorrect figures and making it seem as if these asylum seekers aren't being allowed to stay for any other legitimate reason.

The Star then quotes two totally unbiased commentators on the subject - Migrationwatch and the TaxPayers' Alliance.

Those two also pop up in the Express' version of the story. Soft-touch asylum as 144,000 get 'back door amnesty' is their headline. Of course, only 62,000 have actually been granted leave to remain, so talking of the 144,000 in the present tense is misleading. And the 144,000 is dubious anyway, because there aren't 450,000 cases - the Express allows 'officials' to call the figure 'speculative' towards the end of the story (and only towards the end of the story).

But journalist Macer Hall also makes it seem as if all those people who have been given leave to remain shouldn't have been. The use of the button-pushing word 'amnesty' is for no other reason than to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment, and implies their asylum claims had no genuine merit. As the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association states:

Some people think...the Home Office have begun a new ‘amnesty’ exercise for granting indefinite leave to remain to people in order to clear their backlog. This is not correct. The Home Office may grant leave to remain to some individuals. However, this will only happen if the individual’s circumstances meet existing criteria for a grant of leave to remain.

But Hall ploughs on, saying: 'many suspected border cheats are effectively being given an amnesty from deportation.' Except, it's not an amnesty. And asylum seekers are not 'border cheats'. He also writes: 'Many are claimants who should have been deported as far back as the mid-1990s'.

But the fact of them being 'legacy cases' is that their original cases were never decided one way or another. Hall and the Express either don't understand this, or - more likely - wilfully choose to ignore it. Here is the UK Border Agency explanation:

We define these unresolved asylum cases as ones where an asylum claim has been made and, as yet, the application has not been concluded either because of errors in recording information or because there is still some action we need to take on it.

So if they never had their asylum claim turned down, how can Hall conclude they 'should have been deported'? Of course, the Express is only interested in making them all seem undeserving. And to that end both it and the Star conveniently 'forget' to mention that 27,500 who have had their claims rejected and are lined up for removal.

It's more insidious inflammatory and - of course - untrue crap from hate-filled papers.

Still, at least a previous, ridiculous scare story about the legacy cases - that half a million asylum seekers would be granted leave to remain as the backlog was cleared - has been well and truly destroyed. Who would come up with such wildly exaggerated bullshit?

Macer Hall. In the Express.

Yes, in 2007's Secret 'amnesty' for 500,000 asylum cases, he believed all those 450,000 'cases' were to be approved, and then made up another 50,000 just to make it an even half-million. He also inaccurately referred to 'failed asylum seekers' and 'immigrants who were turned down for refugee status but not expelled from the country'. So after two years, he still doesn't understand what he's talking about. Or doesn't want to.

Calais. Again.

Another day, another Calais story. It is once again becoming a daily occurance so the anti-immigration papers can whip up a storm over all the foreigners coming to take British jobs.

It's too small to see in this pic, but all the faces in the job centre queue are white - helpfully, one of them even has a Union Jack top on. None of the faces in the Calais line are white.

What you can see is the sub-head, where 'Benefit Britain' has become a proper noun. But reporter Macer Hall doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind what the story is actually about. In the context of the unemployment figures, it suggests a scare about job stealing foreigners. But 'Benefit Britain' makes clear the Express thinks they are all coming here to get live on welfare. So they are simultaneously taking jobs (they shouldn't have) and benefits (they can't claim)? Do they even think about the drivel they write any more? Don't answer that...