The plan to 'scrap' the use of Mr and Mrs...

In October 2012, many column inches were devoted to claims that Brighton and Hove City Council was planning to 'scrap' the terms Mr and Mrs.

The Mirror went with:

The Mail:

The Telegraph:

The Sun's print version carried a photo of Mr and Mrs host Phillip Schofield with a speech bubble saying: 'Welcome to Non Gender and Non Gender', under the headline 'Ban Mr & Mrs!'. Online, the headline was:

There were many other websites that repeated the same claims.

But the story wasn't correct - the Council had not made any recommendations or published any plans at this time. The Council's Trans Equality Scrutiny Panel, who were looking into a range of issues, suggested there was a problem with a set-list of honorifics on online forms - that if you don't select one of the set options, and some trans people do not feel that the titles Mr or Mrs are suitable for them, it could prevent completion of the form. So people could still call themselves Mr or Mrs, but they would have the freedom to choose a title with which they felt most comfortable. 

Jane Fae wrote in the Guardian:

They don't identify as male or female, prefer "Mx" (pronounced "Mix") as title of choice, and feel positively excluded by forms that demand they pick from a limited list of gender-specific titles. It's a small exclusion, but why should they have to put up with such when a remedy is so easily implemented?

The Trans Equality Scrutiny Panel's final report was published in January. Unsurprisingly, it does not recommend scrapping Mr and Mrs, as it explains on page 65:

Given recent press coverage of the subject of honorifics, the Panel would like to make clear that they never had any intention of recommending that the use of honorifics should be removed. The recommendation of this report is aimed at giving more choice to those who do not want to identify as Mr/Ms/Mrs/Dr. It is worth noting that this may not just apply to trans people: others may not choose to use a honorific if given the option.

Recommendation 35: The Panel welcome the addition of the honorific Mx by council benefits staff as giving an alternative option. The Panel recommend that all on-line forms are examined to look at the possibility of additional options, leaving blank or entering the title the individual feels is appropriate to them.

Three weeks on, and neither the Sun, Mirror, Mail nor Telegraph appear to have informed their readers of what has actually been recommended by the Panel. A search of all four websites using terms 'brighton mx' and 'brighton trans' reveals no new articles on this subject since October.  

As the Panel said following the original articles:

We acknowledge and regret that the tone and content of much of the on-line debate over the last week has caused distress and may have damaged the trust we have sought to build up. We condemn the offensive and discriminatory tone of much of that comment, and reiterate that all members of the panel remain committed to transgender equality. We also recognise the need for balanced, fair and accurate media reporting and will be working proactively to encourage this regarding the scrutiny going forward.

(hat-tip to Jane Fae)

PCC rejects complaints about 'bacon smell offends Muslims' story

Last month, the Mail reported that a cafe in Stockport will have to remove its extractor fan 'because the smell of...frying bacon 'offends' Muslims'.

This wasn't true.

The fan has to be removed because the cafe owners (one of whom is Muslim) were refused planning permission for it. Moreover, the only person who officially complained about the smell during the planning application process was a member of the non-Muslim family who lived next door to the cafe.

Three people complained to the PCC about the story - versions of which also appeared in the Metro and Telegraph - but it has rejected the complaints. Apparently, despite the Mail saying the fan was being 'torn down' because 'the smell of frying bacon 'offends' Muslims' the PCC says:

readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission.

Here's the full PCC ruling :

The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.

While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.

The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.

However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.

While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

(Hat-tip to Dave, one of the complainants)

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has written an excellent post which points out that the vast majority of the 544 comments that appeared on the Mail's article were written by people who had clearly been 'misled' - despite the PCC saying that 'would not' happen. He writes:

The articles were clearly prejudicial because the headlines and intros were misleading. The end result was to feed anti-Muslim bigotry.

To build a story based on one man's unsupported statement when it involves the delicate matter of religious intolerance shows a reckless disregard for the pubic interest and social cohesion.

In the PCC's opinion, "the body of the articles" in the Mail and Telegraph made the situation "clear."

Come off it! The papers did not run this story because it involved the removal of an extractor fan. They ran it because it fitted their own anti-Muslim agendas.

Banned

The Daily Mail reports:


James Tozer's article begins:

Once they fought them on the beaches. Seventy years later it seems they are fighting them in the aisles.

But this time the enemy is the German-owned Aldi supermarket.

It has infuriated war veterans by refusing to let them sell remembrance poppies in one of its stores.

Except at the end of the very same story, Aldi say:

‘Requests to collect in-store or leave collection tins in-store are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and due to Mr Myerscough’s age, we will gladly allow him to collect in store.’

It appears that one store - in Manchester - had originally said that the Royal British Legion could do their collecting:

under the ‘protective overhead canopy’ outside the store.

Tozer claims this was:

little more than a declaration of war.

But Aldi have since changed their mind and allowed him into the store.

So the Mail knew their headline and the spin on their article about poppy selling being 'banned' (and by Germans!) wasn't true. Yet they went ahead with it anyway.

This is the latest in a very long line of media reports about something being 'banned' which hasn't quite turned out to be entirely accurate.

At the weekened, the Star and the Telegraph both reported that traffic wardens and parking staff from one council have been 'banned' from smiling.

In the Star, Emily Hall wrote:

Traffic wardens have been banned from smiling in case it makes cheesed-off drivers more irate.

The Telegraph said clearly:


Quite how a council polices a 'ban' on facial expressions isn't immediately clear. But that implies Hall and the Telegraph churnalist have actually thought about this story.

In fact, the local paper revealed that during training, staff were told that smiling might not be appropriate when dealing with irate members of the public as it could upset them further.

Once again, a example of people being given guidance becomes a story about a 'ban'.

On Sunday, the Express claimed:

Nanny state rules have banned scissors, plasters and creams in council first aid kits to stop accident victims suing over medical mishaps.

Really? 'State rules' have 'banned' these things? There isn't a council first aid kit anywhere in the country with plasters and scissors inside? On what bit of comprehensive research has the Express come to this conclusion?

One worker for one of England’s biggest county councils, who didn’t want to be named, said: "It is ridiculous. The kit supplied in our pool car doesn’t have scissors, plasters or antiseptic cream and when I asked why not I was told about the legal implications."

Ah. One anonymous person from one unnamed council giving an example about one first aid kit. Even if what that one person says is true, it's a big jump to go from that to a nationwide ban.

Moreover, the HSE, in guidance revised in October 2009, say that in low-hazard work environments a 'minimum stock of first-aid items' would include 20 plasters, eye pads, triangle bandages, safety pins, wound dressings and disposable gloves.

Yes, it also says:

It is recommended that you don’t keep tablets and medicines in the first-aid box.

But that seems more like common sense than some indecipherable nanny-state ruling.

Then there was the story about Barnet Council 'banning' mother-in-law jokes which appeared in the Mail, Star and Telegraph (and many other places).

Had they? No:

Barnet Council has denied censoring staff by putting a ban on mother-in-law jokes, after a handout used at a training session described them as “sexist” and disrespectful to elders.

Around 30 staff members attending the equality and diversity practise workshop were given the booklet cautioning them on their use of humour.

In the document, put together by a £550-a-day independent trainer it says: “Careful on Humour: Humour can be incredibly culture-specific, and is very open to misinterpretation or even offense [sic] by other cultures. And don’t forget: when you don’t know what people are laughing at, it is easy to imagine that they are laughing at you.

“Example: British mother-in-law jokes, as well as offensively sexist in their own right, can also be seen as offensive on the grounds that they disrespect elders or parents.”

However, a spokesman for Barnet Council said the document was not a policy document, but merely used as an example of how workers should be mindful of causing offence to people of other cultures.

They added: "Barnet council does not have a policy on mother-in-law jokes. “The information was given in a handout to 30 staff who attended a one off training course by a third party trainer and is not a council document.

“Our advice to staff is that they should be polite and avoid giving offence to any member of the public.”

(More on that from Five Chinese Crackers)

One of the hacks who delights in this 'can you believe what they've banned now?' stuff is, of course, Richard Littlejohn. During the World Cup he claimed:

Just in time for the start of the World Cup in South Africa, a primary school in Essex has banned playground football. You guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Four days later, he had to publish an unqualified apology after the headteacher told him football had been suspended to punish bad behaviour.

But that didn't deter him. A few weeks ago, he wrote:

For the past 15 years, this column has made a good living out of elf 'n' safety.

How nice of him to admit that's he's been paid handsomely for flogging the same dead horse for a decade-and-a-half.

He continued:

Now, though, the Government is promising to put an end to the madness, scrapping the stupid rules and risk assessments, and derailing the spiv lawyers cashing in on the com-pen-say-shun culture.

No one has told Lancaster City Council, which has banned revellers from watching the city's annual fireworks display from Castle Hill, citing - you guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Even though it has taken place for the past 18 years without anyone getting hurt.
Looks like there's still some mileage in it for me yet.

Of course, one of the reasons he's been able to get so much 'mileage' out of it is because he wildly exaggerates what 'elf'n'safety' is actually responsible for.

In the case of the Lancaster fireworks, Primly Stable did more research than Littlejohn could manage. He found a report in the Lancaster Guardian that told a rather different story:

Lancaster City Council has decided not to allow people into the Castle and Priory area on November 6, citing negative feedback from visitors last year and potential safety issues.

Yes, safety was one issue (although it's not clear why ensuring people are safe should be considered a 'bad thing'). But what about the negative feedback?

Gill Hague, the council’s assistant head of community engagement, said that the area would be completely closed off to the public.

She added: “Visitors told us that the castle precinct was cramped and is not a particularly good area from which to view the fireworks due to its historic layout.

“Many people found that their view of the fireworks was blocked by spectators, buildings and trees. Last year we experimented with limiting numbers at the castle but we received similar comments.”

She added that people’s safety was one consideration.

So although safety was 'one consideration', the Council have actually 'cited' the fact that last year's spectators thought the area was cramped and didn't give a good view of the firework display.

That 'elf'n'safety' story appeared just a few days after the tabloids had given the Winterval myth yet another outing.

And on the 2 October the media was falling over itself to come up with examples of silly health and safety rules following a series of interviews by Lord Young - who has been asked by the Government to produce recommendations that will put an end to such 'madness'.

The Sun came up with several examples of health and safety gone mad. For example:

Residents in flats were barred from hanging washing on lines from their balconies by officials in Croydon, South London. They said the clothes may fall on passers-by beneath the flats and hurt them.

Except they didn't say that at all. Croydon Council weren't worried about a wet shirt falling on to passers-by, but entire rotary washing lines:

The use of rotary dryers attached to a balcony or a walkway...presents a health and safety risk to other residents if they fall. This could happen in high winds or when the dryer is overloaded with heavy and wet washing. They are also an eyesore and can cause damage to the council’s property. The council does not give permission to any resident to use a rotary dryer in this way.

Instead of fixing a rotary dryer to the building there are lots of other folding dryers available that are free-standing and can be taken indoors after use.

That might still strike the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade as needlessly officious, but at least they should be honest about what is actually being said.

Another example the Sun quoted was about a ban on toothpicks:

A restaurant in Cheshire banned toothpicks from being given to customers in case they hurt themselves and sued. The barmy call came after advice from a health and safety consultant without any qualifications.

In fact, one customer who wanted to pick his teeth in public (shudder) had been told he couldn't have one. The Mail blamed the 'Toothpick Taliban' and said:

it seems the toothpick has become the latest victim of the health and safety police.

But later in the article they acknowledged:

However, a Macdonald Hotels spokesman denied there was a toothpick ban, and suggested 'there were simply none available on the night'.

Indeed, the hotel's Regional General Manager explained:

- There is absolutely no directive from Head Office with regards toothpicks, and this was not noted to the guest by the senior manager on duty, as implied by the various articles

- There is no law against toothpicks, and this was certainly not reported to the guest concerned

- The hotel had genuinely run out of toothpicks, and we are at a complete loss as to why the waiter would have come up with the Health & Safety excuse, unfortunately being a casual staff member and University student, we haven't as yet seem him to ask

- The guest concerned had in fact ordered a bespoke meal for himself and his wife, and this was different to the rest of the visiting diners

- The guest was found a "toothpick" once the situation had been brought to the attention of the manager on duty that evening

So how has the Sun concluded a 'health and safety consultant without any qualifications' had 'banned' toothpicks?

One other example the Sun uses is about a pancake race:

People taking part in a Shrove Tuesday pancake race in St Albans, Herts, were told by a council official to walk rather than run - because recent rain made it dangerous.

Lord Young calls this 'the worst case I've come across.' Now this one is actually true. But was it a big deal? The St Albans Review reported:

Organisers and competitors alike have denied a national press report that yesterday's St Albans pancake race was ruined by excessive safety fears...

The Daily Mail reported that the event was booed, and some competitors complained the ban was pointless as the rain was very light.

But district councillor Melvyn Teare, the responsible cabinet member, said: "It was raining heavily so it was decided for safety reasons that people would have to walk rather than run...But despite the rain, it was a successful event and everybody seemed to enjoy themselves."

He was backed by competitor Louise Miller from a team representing the Grove House hospice, who said: "How sad that certain daily newspapers need to put a negative spin on such a fun, community event...It was raining, there was no booing - in fact as ever there was a great atmosphere and lots of laughter and cheering"...

Nicola O'Donnell, from the winning team Strutt and Parker, said: "We had a really good time. I thought it was a great event and we'll do it again next year. It was a shame it was raining, but the ban on running didn't affect us in any way."

The paper adds:

Just a stone's throw away in Rickmansworth, one pancake race competitor took a tumble on a slippery pavement, which perhaps could have been avoided if the same health and safety regulations had been applied.

Yes, the walking pancake race may have been over-cautious, but it didn't seem to have much effect on the event itself. So what's the problem?

There is a clear agenda behind these 'banned' stories - that people can't do what they want any more because of health and safety or political correctness or the EU or because it might offend some minority.

Certain newspapers treat every bit of guidance as a 'ban'. Safety concerns are seen as needless meddling. One-off incidents are considered to be part of nationwide diktats.

Very often the examples are exaggerated, if not completely wrong. For example, there have been other stories about bans on buying a dozen eggs, on England flags and football shirts and on milk jugs. None of them were true.

But newspapers know that readers (and, it seems, politicians) react to this stuff so, as Littlejohn warned, there's still plenty of mileage in it for them yet...

Churnalism: that's the way to do it

In Richard Littlejohn's latest book, which was serialised in the Mail in March, he says in his rant about political correctness:

Already some seaside councils have scrapped donkey rides on the grounds of animal cruelty and Punch and Judy because it glorifies domestic violence.

Neither claim was accurate and as the Punch and Judy website says:

the myth that Mr. Punch had been 'banned' by the authorities for not being politically correct duly entered contemporary folklore.

Yet a new version of this tale has emerged in both the Mail:


and Telegraph:


'PC officials'. 'Warnings'. 'Ordered'. Really?

The Mail says:

officials at a coastal resort have deemed a traditional Punch and Judy show too shocking for modern tastes, and ordered any violence to be removed from the script.

But who are the 'officials'? What 'warnings' did they give? Who 'ordered' the changes?

It's not very surprising to find that neither the Mail or Telegraph answer any of those questions - because those officials don't actually exist. It's just the usual lashing out at a generic 'PC brigade'.

Will people watching the show spot that 'any violence' has been 'removed from the script'? Probably not, as the Mail's article makes clear when it quotes the puppeteer:

"Mr Punch is still a rascal and still has a variety of weapons in his arsenal but they are more socially appropriate."

He also reveals Punch's usual stick has been replaced by a mop. Do these newspapers have nothing more important to write about than that?

Puppeteer Daniel Liversidge, who entertains kids under the name Mr Marvel, advertises his services like this:

Punch and Judy
Traditional and modern at the same time, the Punch and Judy show takes the original story of the timeless old rascal, Mr Punch, and brings him bang up to date in a politically correct 21st Century! The show includes the ever-present Judy, the long suffering baby and a surprise appearance from a very snappy crocodile, all kept under control by PC Plod, the policeman.

Therefore, it appears this 'up to date' version is, in fact, Liversidge's usual act. Thus the claim he's been 'ordered' to change it by 'officials' in Portsmouth looks even more hollow.

Indeed, in the Belfast Telegraph:

Nick Fletcher, spokesman for the venue, said the tower's management had not called for the changes to the show but said such alterations were inevitable...

"We have put no restraints on him but he has taken on board constructive comments from elsewhere and decided to make his Punch and Judy show more modern."

So how did the Mail and Telegraph write almost exactly the same story, with exactly the same slant and exactly the same quotes?

Step forward Blue Zebra PR. On Wednesday, they sent out a press release with the title 'Punch and Judy politics affect portsmouth performance: Puppet show toned down to meet PC standards' knowing that would get them - and their clients - some column inches from the usual suspects. The accuracy of it is, to them, secondary.

And the churnalism duly followed. For example, look at this paragraph from the Telegraph, repeating Littlejohn's lie about Colchester Borough Council:

However the three-hundred -year old show is increasingly falling victim to political correctness. Wiltshire council once discussed taking Punch and Judy books off their library shelves while Colchester council even planned to ban the puppet shows altogether.

And then this, from the original press release:

After Wiltshire County Council considered taking Punch and Judy books off its library shelves, and Colchester Borough Council threatened to ban the puppet shows, professors of the puppetry performance have felt under pressure to improve its reputation and bring a good name back to the nostalgic show.

All the quotes from Liversidge, and the event's commercial manager Paul Mahy, and all the bits in between, have been copied-and-pasted by the Mail and Telegraph straight from the press release.

Just to check the story, I emailed the Blue Zebra PR contact and asked for clarification on who the officials were. I got a reply, but didn't get an answer. But I was told:

Sadly we are unable to approve journalist’s stories before they go out, however we still think that the coverage for our client...is great!

Which says it all.

For comparison, screenshots of the press release and the two articles follow (click to enlarge):

'Now' Red Arrows are (not) banned by health and safety

On 13 July, Angry Mob highlighted the latest thing 'banned' by health and safety: the Red Arrows.

The Mail reported, under a headline which began with the word 'now...':

The Red Arrows have been banned from putting on a flying display over a seaside town – over health and safety fears.

The world famous RAF team were scheduled to top the bill at the annual regatta in Dartmouth, Devon.

But organisers decided to cancel the display – which has taken place every year since 1980 – amid fears that vibrations from the low-flying jets might damage buildings.

The story went on to reveal the thoughts of angry locals who said it was:

'just health and safety nonsense'.

In fact, it was just nonsense. Why?

Because one day after the Mail's story, the Red Arrows issued a press release with the headline 'Spurious show story':

There have been reports in the national news today that the Red Arrows will not be displaying at Dartmouth.

This is not true and the Team is still planning to display at the Town’s Royal Regatta event.

Squadron Leader Ben Murphy, Officer Commanding and Team Leader of the Red Arrows said:

“We are still planning to display at Dartmouth on August 27. We have not been contacted by the event organisers with any concerns about damage to buildings. In fact the Mayor of Dartmouth contacted the Team this morning to say that the town is still very much looking forward to the display and that reports in the national press about the town cancelling are simply not true.”

(Hat-tip IC Oliver)

They're still not covering Snowdon in tarmac

Last Wednesday, the Mail reported that three sections of one of the paths on Snowdon, totalling 100m, had been covered in tarmac (and then topped with crushed stone to make it look like the rest of the path).

The paper tried to pretend this had caused 'fury' and that the amount of tarmac laid was rather more than was actually the case.

The next day, in the paper's main op-ed piece, Janet Street-Porter repeated these half-truths. She clearly hadn't read the original article properly and so sounded even more silly than she usually manages by basing her rant on something other than the facts:

...sadly — and unstoppably — Snowdon is being tamed and turned into a Welsh version of Disney Land.

Now, a long section of the ancient Miners’ Track has just been covered with Tarmac.

'A long section'? Even if the 100m of new tarmac was in one place, it wouldn't be a long section - it makes up about 4% of the total length of the Miner's Track. That it's actually in three sections proves she's another Mail columnist who doesn't do her research and bases her reactionary columns on Mail headlines.

She continued:

Laying a Tarmac path will just encourage more silly people to think they can conquer nature when they can’t.

And:

Tarmac and peaks don’t belong together. At this rate, the UK will soon be concreted over from St Ives to Ullswater.

Adding:

Park officials claim they want to make the route more suitable for those with physical disabilities. I’m outraged — they’ll be putting in platforms for the train and piped music next.

So Street-Porter sounds like she might actually be in a 'fury'.

Shame all her outrage - and all those words - are wasted on something that hasn't happened.

And she wasn't the only one to give this non-story more coverage. In his Friday column, Richard Littlejohn made light of an initiative from Kent Police's Gipsy and Traveller Action Group (GTAG) to provide 'safe caravans' to Gypsy women who suffer domestic abuse:

That's a lot of safe caravans. Quite apart from the cost, they've all got to be parked somewhere. It might explain why they're Tarmacking over Snowdonia.

Hilarious.

Fury as part of path is made a bit safer

It's political correctness gone mad:


This Mail headline and article is similar to yesterday's swimming pool story. A few mildly critical comments from a few users of a facility is turned into general 'fury' (such an overused word) and the changes being made are on a much smaller scale than is implied.

Jaya Narain's article begins:

Located in the middle of a beautiful national park, Mount Snowdon is one of the most awesome natural wonders of Great Britain.

The wild slopes, steep ridges and treacherous screes of the second highest mountain in the UK attract experienced mountaineers from across the world who want to pit their climbing skills against its rugged routes.

But now the 3,560ft mountain just got a whole lot tamer after a tarmac pathway was laid on one of the ancient routes.

'A tarmac pathway'. But in the next sentence:

The work to level and partly tarmac a mile-and-a-half of the Miners' Track has been carried out to encourage more people onto the mountain.

Ah, now it's only 'partly tarmac'.

Perhaps we better skip to the end of the article and find out what the official spokesman has to say about what's really happened:

Emyr Williams, director of land management at the SNPA, said: 'The path stretches for two and a half kilometres and the only part which has been tarmacked is three separate stretches totalling only 100 metres.

So it's not exactly a 'tarmac path up Snowdon' then.

And are these people really in a 'fury' about three bits of tarmac totalling 100m out of two-and-a-half kilometers (around 4% of the path)? Especially when, Williams adds, the tarmac:

has then been topped with crushed stone to make it look like the rest of the path which has been levelled because it had become badly eroded.'

He said: 'There are five paths up Snowdon and this is one that goes to about halfway up the mountain. We do not carry out works like this lightly and believe it was the correct decision to allow those with physical disabilities a chance to enjoy the mountain.'

And it's not just people with physical disabilities, or parents with pushchairs, who will benefit from the changes to the path:

mountain rescuers say the newly-surfaced Miners' Track...will make their job much easier.

It's political correctness gone mad...

(Hat-tip to BarnetAkela)

Fun with numbers

One article from the Mail and one from the Sun today which both show a less than comprehensive grasp of statistics. But it's not solely down to stupidity - the headlines they have used fit their agenda, even if the numbers don't.

So from the Mail:

'Winning banned in two-thirds of schools'. And the article does reveal a new poll that:

surveyed almost 300 primary and secondary schools and found that 69 per cent reward all participants in sports days.

It doesn't explain what these rewards are, but that doesn't necessarily mean 'winning' is 'banned'.

Indeed, it then goes on to totally contradict the headline:

Nine per cent of all schools refuse to single out any winners at all.

Ah. So it's only 9% then. Not two-thirds.

Over in the Sun, a report on a poll about a referendum on changing the voting system. YouGov asked:

In view of spending cuts, is it appropriate to spend £80million on an AV referendum now?

It's not clear where the £80million figure comes from - the article states it could cost 'up to' that amount. And while 46% said inappropriate, 35% said appropriate and 19% said don't know.

But they also asked:

Regardless of how you would vote, do you support the principle of holding a referendum?

69% said yes and only 12% were opposed.

The Sun's headline for this support for a referendum?


The Sun oppose the referendum, as the Mail wants everyone to think political correctness has gone mad at school sports days, hence the headlines. Presumably they just hope people won't notice what's actually been said.

(Hat-tip Adam Bienkov)

The ban on England flags and shirts...

...is clearly working.

Boy definitely not thrown off bus for wearing England shirt

Further details have emerged from Staffordshire about the case of the boy who, it was claimed, was thrown off a bus for wearing an England shirt by an Eastern European driver.

Or wasn't, as was fairly obvious from the very start to all but some stupid believe-any-anti-English-fairy-story tabloids:

A mother who claimed her two-year-old was ordered off a bus for wearing an England shirt has been branded a liar...

First Bus commercial director Paul De Santis said: "We have interviewed every single driver in the vicinity at the time and have not been able to find anyone who knows anything about the incident or who matches the description given to us.

"The complainant also stated she went to the office in Newcastle later that day and reported the incident.

"We can't find anyone who knows of any report and we did not have a lady on duty that day like the complainant said."

Miss Fardon was also asked by the bus company to provide details of witnesses.

But the firm says it has been unable to contact two of them, while the third gave information which conflicted with what Miss Fardon said.

Mr De Santis added: "I have come to the conclusion that, particularly from the point there was no Eastern European driving the services on the day in question, that the incident did not happen. Nothing we have subsequently done in terms of contacting drivers and speaking to witnesses has changed that."

And if all that wasn't enough, and just to make absolutely clear this story was complete rubbish from the start:

Miss Fardon has now withdrawn her complaint.

And the result:

Mr De Santis added: "There have been one or two unsavoury incidents with our members of staff over the incident. We are very concerned that this has caused that and our drivers are not happy their reputation has been damaged. We now want to draw a line under this and get on with doing our job."

And that is what happens when the media helps to spread lies.

It's interesting that several comments both on this blog picked up that the mother was called Sam Fardon and that someone with the same name, of the same age, from the same area had been in trouble with the police (for stealing) in 2004.

Yet so-called journalists such as Fay Schlesinger, who wrote up the story for the Mail, didn't bother doing any checking on either her or her story.

Back on 27 May, this blog argued that the Mail, Mirror and Star - who wrote about Fardon's original claims - should have followed-up with the results of First's investigation.

They didn't.

Now the story has been completely debunked, and the woman has withdrawn her complaint, it would be inexcusable for them to avoid telling their readers that fact.

(Hat-tip to Adrian)

Recommended reading

Yesterday morning, the Mail website's top story was The £18,000 council job you can't apply for if you are white.

It was a lot of sound and fury about Bristol City Council advertising two training posts (not jobs) for BME graduates.

By early afternoon, the BNP had the story on their website, claiming:

The anti-white and anti-British establishment has abandoned any pretence at fairness and at last broken its cover with the advertising of local government jobs for which white people are forbidden from applying.

Both Five Chinese Crackers and Angry Mob have looked at the story and both articles are well worth reading.

As 5CC says:

The [Mail] could approach issues from a far more sensible perspective, but chooses to exaggerate and lie instead. When those lies and exaggerations extend to how much of a wonderful and unfair advantage ethnic minorities and other out-groups get, it's particularly nasty, and so are the potential consequences.

That's when the paper stops being just disappointing and starts being potentially dangerous.

Mail on Sunday gives away England flags, despite 'ban'

Given that the Mail keeps telling us that England flags are being banned, the Mail on Sunday has come up with a strange giveaway today:

Or is simply that this ban on England flags (and shirts) is as non-existent as the ban on talking about immigration?

Failing to tell both sides of the story

The tabloid coverage of the 'ban' on England football shirts became even more ridiculous when the Mail published Driver orders toddler off bus for wearing 'offensive' England football shirt. It never even sounded likely.

It was a mainly a cut-and-paste job from this local newspaper article.

Based solely on the say-so of the mother, it was claimed the driver, who had a Polish or Eastern European or dodgy-foreign-sounding accent, was offended by the two-year-old wearing one of those 'banned' England football shirts. It's political correctness gone mad, etc.

The following day, the Star and the Mirror repeated this tale (along with countless other websites and forums), based solely on the word of the Mail.

But by then the local paper, The Sentinel had returned to the story. They reported that First Bus had received thirty complaints - mainly, it seems, from people who had read about the incident.

One witness who had claimed to have been there said it happened on Monday. But that was the day the Sentinel published the story. The mother said the incident occurred the previous Thursday...

Paul de Santis, from First, told the paper:

"As time has gone we have reached the conclusion that the incident did not happen.

"We have not been able to find any credible witnesses. And we have not been able to confirm the identity of the driver at the centre of the allegation.

"We belive it to be highly unlikely that it happened. If this is the case that is extremely concerning to us. It's not only damaged our reputation, but could have put our staff in danger through potential reprisals."

And First issued an offical statement:

We have carried out a full investigation and can't find any evidence to substantiate this claim. No driver fitting the description given was working on any routes in this area at that time. Our buses were busy around the time yet no one else has been in touch with us about this alleged incident.

We expect the highest level of professionalism from our drivers and such an act would not be tolerated. However, in this instance it now appears that no such incident took place.

Here's the thing: this statement has been in the public domain for two days.

And yet neither the Mail, Star or Mirror have deemed it necessary to inform their readers' about it.

So either they don't want to correct their earlier story, and look like they may have got something wrong, or they are happy to let the myth of banned England shirts rumble on because it suits their PC-gone-mad, Britain-under-attack-from-foreigners agenda.

Or more likely, both.

(More over at Enemies of Reason)

Respect

Hard as it is to believe, the Daily Star has actually had news about the election on its front page every day for the last week.

And no, it hasn't been 'Jordan votes for this' or 'Cheryl supports that'-type coverage:


Like most of the Star's reporting, it's probably written for three-year-olds, but hey, at least it's not Kerry Katona.

Today, the Star had David Cameron and Nick Clegg on the front (calling them Ant and Dec, the same comparison used by Jan Moir...), but it chose another story for its lead:


The headline doesn't make much sense, but then the article is rubbish anyway. As is the Star's 'Exclusive' tag, given that the story was in the Sun and on the Mail website the previous day.

Originally, the Mail gave their article this misleading headline:

Parents' outrage as children told 'dress as a Muslim for mosque trip - or you will be branded a truant'.

But this has now been changed - and softened - to Catholic school girl who refused headscarf for mosque trip labelled a truant.

Why? Because the school wasn't forcing anyone to 'dress as a Muslim'.

The story is this: Ellesmere Port Catholic High School has organised a trip to a local mosque for its Year 9 pupils. They were told, in a letter helpfully published by the Mail:

Pupils will be expected to wear full school uniform. As you can appreciate the Mosque has a strict dress code, all girls must have a skirt that is over the knee and must wear a headscarf (a simple scarf that covers the head will suffice).

Does a Catholic school's uniform, with a simple scarf over the head added, really sound like pupils were being forced to 'dress as a Muslim'?

Apparently it does to Nick Seaton from the rent-an-outrage-quote Campaign for Real Education:

'Everyone should respect the religion of others but to expect a pupil to dress up to this extent is extreme to say the least. It is ridiculous'.

'Dress up to this extent'? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about.

Anyway, when one mother - Michelle Davies - complained, she was told by the headteacher that this was a compulsory field trip and if her daughter did not go, it would be recorded as an unauthorised absence.

And because she didn't like that, it seems she went running to the papers to become a martyr to the cause.

Davies is quoted as saying:

'I wasn't having my daughter dressed in the Muslim way...

'I also fail to see how a three-hour trip to a mosque is of any educational value to a Catholic when she can learn about the Muslim faith in the classroom'.

And from the Star:

Another parent, Kirsty Ashworth, whose daughter Charlie Sheen was due to attend, said: 'I send my daughter to an English-speaking Catholic school, so I don’t see why she should be forced to dress as a Muslim.'

Which, of course, she wasn't. Frankly, both parents sound as if an educational trip such as this would do both of them some good. Who really sounds like the intolerant party here?

But the Star isn't content with its inflammatory and misleading story - its editorial goes much, much further:

The headmaster...tried to force Amy to wear a Muslim-style headscarf.

It's disgusting. Everyone involved should hang their head in shame.

Amy is a Catholic. Her beliefs should be respected.

Demanding she ditch her faith for Islam is the ultimate religious insult.

Errr, what? Where has the Star invented the line that she was being forced to 'ditch her faith'?

This was about schoolkids on a trip to a mosque covering their heads. How did it become 'demanding' someone convert to Islam?

That line really is an utter disgrace.

As several of the people leaving (surprisingly tolerant) comments on the Mail website point out, on their trips to synagogues, St Mark's Basilica in Venice and St Peter's in Rome and so on, coverings for shoulders, arms and/or heads were required attire for visitors. Most people remove hats without complaint when entering a Christian church. Yet there's no similar 'outrage' about that.

But because this involves Islam, there is.

The tabloids want to claim this is another example of political correctness gone mad, of Muslims dictating what the rest of 'us' can do, of Christians under attack.

What it's actually about is people being asked to show respect in a place of worship.

Why is that so problematic?

How to get free publicity for your business

A few weeks ago, the newspapers got into a flap over claims that a businesswoman was 'banned' from using 'reliable' in a job advert.

Yet every version of the story quoted a Department of Work and Pensions spokesperson saying the advert ran with the word 'reliable' in it.

So a bit of a non-story, but a chance to push the 'PC gone mad' agenda.

Today, the Mail was at it again.

In Job Centre staff told hairdresser she couldn't advertise for 'junior' stylist - because it was ageist the paper claims the word 'junior' fell foul on discrimination laws and so was banned.

And this time?

A Department of Work and Pensions spokeswoman denied Mrs Hilling was stopped from using the word 'junior' in the ad and said Job Centre Plus's advisers simply give employers advice on wording their ad to attract the most applicants.

A spokesman said: 'Our advisers will help employers get as many applicants for their jobs as possible.

'Some people may be put off applying if they think a job is only aimed at young people, so we'll advise on wording adverts to help businesses get the best person for them.'

Oh. But at least the Mail mentioned the name of the salon, the name of the owner's husband's salon and included a picture of the former, so running off to the papers ensured they got some free publicity out of this.

Which, given the amount of coverage the earlier story got, may have been the point.

(Hat-tip to mr_wonderful at the Mailwatch Forum)

Breaking news from the Mail: someone's buying quiche

The Mail's other Tesco story of last week was even more insubstantial than the ones about pyjamas.

For around five hours on Tuesday afternoon, this was the top news story on the Mail's website:


And then it was relegated to second place for a few more hours.

The Mail actually thought a story about a woman trying to buy quiche was the most important thing going on in the world.

The story is this: 24-year-old Christine Cuddihy had tried to buy a piece of quiche from Tesco and was asked for ID. Thrilling, huh?

Cuddihy was embarrassed but produced some ID and got her quiche. A Tesco spokesman said:

'We're at a loss to say what happened here. We couldn't find the staff member who asked for the ID. Age-related prompts at till are set centrally and there obviously isn't one on quiche.'

So, assuming it did happen - and given the story and the Tesco statement, that isn't certain - it's an isolated incident. A cock-up. A till bleeping at the wrong time. An overly officious member of staff. A funny (ish) story to tell your friends. That's about it.

Of course, for the Mail (and the readers who leave comments) this all represented the latest example of political correctness gone mad. You can't even buy quiche any more! It's the end of civilisation as we know it.

Errr, no, it's probably just a one-off.

Inevitably, Littlejohn had to mention it in his column on Friday, but only so he could make this 'joke' (although it is being exceptionally generous to describe it as one):

Are you over 21, madam? Give us a quiche and I'll tell you.

No wonder he gets paid so much...

What's curious about this whole incident is how it came to dominate the Mail's website for so much of Tuesday.

The story was first published - like so many national stories - in the local press. The Leamington Observer ran it on 1 February, in an article written by the Deputy Editor Kevin Unitt. He told Hold the Front Page:

I knew it was a good story, and hoped it would be picked up by the national press, but none seemed particularly interested at first.

The Sun ran just three lines on it on page 25 last week and the Daily Mail rejected it altogether because The Sun had already covered it, a bizarre decision given they would lead their own website with the story just a few days later.

Bizarre indeed. So what happened?

A press agency...tracked down the woman involved, slightly re-packaged the story, and sold it on to their national newspaper contacts.

On Tuesday, almost a week after we'd ran the piece, the Daily Mail finally screamed it from their website.

And then, Unitt makes a comment about the Mail's agenda:

Some treated it for what it was – a funny story...

But others began to de-construct and take the fun out, blaming it on everything from New Labour and the 'PC Brigade' to big corporations mentally preparing us for the introduction of national identity cards.

The Mail taking 'the fun out' of something. Imagine that?

Finally, Unitt explains the regrets of the woman involved:

Christine, who has had to change her name on internet social networking sites due to random friend requests and seedy messages, says she'd now be quite happy for the quiche incident to be forgotten.

She told the Observer: 'I really want all this to stop now. It's quite scary when you read all the comments about you. It was supposed to just be a funny story!'

OK, she went to the press in the first place, but it's unfortunate that it spun out of control in this way.

It's not clear what prompted the Mail's extraordinary change of heart. Not interested one day, top story a week later. Fun story one day, 'PC gone mad' outrage a week later.

It's common sense, gone mad.

One final note about the Mail's coverage. After claims that Mail journalists may have been caught plagiarising the LA Times, this part of their article:

did seem suspiciously similar to this from the Leamington Observer's original:


(And, an anonymous comment on this blog pointed out another case involving the Mail, from 2002, which apparently led an employee of the Mail to say 'But there isn't any rule against copying stuff off a website, is there?')