Not out

An 'exclusive' from the Sun's cricket correspondent John Etheridge:


And the reaction from Pietersen?


(Hat-tip to Kevin Marsh)

How the anti-immigration agenda works

The Mail was running this story prominently on its website earlier today, the latest in a torrent of recent anti-immigration stories from the paper:


Although the Mail didn't name the girl, she was named in the Sun, Star and Express versions of the same story.

The Sun said:

A gang of immigrant yobs who molested a girl of 14 escaped prosecution - because it was 'not in the public interest'.

Ria George was 'mauled' by eight Slovakian gipsies aged between eight and 12.

The Star, under the headline 'Migrant gipsy boys mauled me but the courts did nothing' said:

A gang of gipsy boys who molested a 14-year-old girl have escaped prosecution because it is 'not in the public interest' to take them to court.

Ria George was walking to a pal’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakians, aged between eight and 12, who 'mauled' her in the street.

The Express went with 'No justice for girl molested by migrants':

A schoolgirl who was molested by a gang of east European boys says she has been 'treated like a liar' by the justice system, which has refused to prosecute her attackers.

Ria George was walking to a friend’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakian louts who groped, touched and humiliated her in the street.

Several things stand out.

One is the prominence of the (alleged) offenders' (alleged) migrant status and/or race.

The Mail says they are from 'Slovakian gipsy' and 'Romany migrant' families who 'settled in the city [Coventry] in the late 1990s', although it's not clear how the paper knows this.

After all, if that timeline is right and if some of the boys are eight, they were probably born in the UK and aren't migrants at all.

So are they definitely Gypsies? Over at Mailwatch, 5CC reports that:

a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said.

This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.

Secondly, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to have gone out of the window. It would be surprising if this wasn't related to the boys (allegedly) being migrants/Gypsies.

Thirdly, having made clear their view that this attack was definitely committed by migrants/Gypsies, the papers heavily imply that it is because they are migrants/Gypsies that the CPS is not moving forward with the case.

The CPS are accused of 'refusing' to prosecute because it would not be in the 'public interest'. This allowed a flood of comments to appear on the Mail website to complain about 'one rule for 'them'' and other such unpleasant, but predictable, views.

But later in the day, a slightly different view emerged from the CPS, although it was ignored by the nationals. The Evening Telegraph in Peterborough reported:

A gang of boys arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Coventry did not face charges because of a lack of evidence, prosecutors said...

The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two "tests" outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

He said: "The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

"If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test - the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.

"In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered."

Why is it this version is only reported in the local media?

Indeed, in the Coventry Telegraph's report on the case, there is no mention of the boys' race at all. So why did that become the focus when the story hit the four right-wing national tabloids?

And did they report on the case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

Well, the CPS also announced today that they would not prosecute anyone in the case of James Parkes, the trainee PC who was left with a fractured skull after being subject to a homophobic attack.

Why?:

Detectives arrested 15 youths during the inquiry but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now decided there is insufficient evidence to charge them.

So two assaults and two cases where the CPS doesn't prosecute because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

But the one allegedly committed by migrants/Gypsies gets reported in four anti-immigrant national newspapers.

The one committed by people of unknown race, where the victim is a gay man, gets ignored by those same four national newspapers.

So, that question again: did they report on the first case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

(For another take on the story, please read 5CC's article over at Mailwatch)

Churnalism, terrorism and alcoholism

Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column on Rentokil is excellent. He shows how the Telegraph, Evening Standard and the Mail all mindlessly repeated some bogus claims made by Rentokil in a classic bit of churnalism.

Yes, Mr Dacre. Churnalism. In the Mail.

The journalists did nothing to investigate or verify the story, or even consider that Renotkil's claims that 2,000 bugs are in every train compartment might not be totally believable.

After a week and a half of obfuscation, Rentokil eventually issued a 'clarification and apology' because, they said:

it might be helpful to explain how we arrived at the numbers and where things went so wrong.

Quite. They added:

We’re really sorry that the numbers that appeared in the media were wrong and misleading and we’ve put in place a number of measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

So the numbers have been exposed by the Guardian and retracted by the company behind them. Yet the Mail, Telegraph and Standard articles are still live. Why?

This is a clear example of where the PCC should be pro-active in ensuring the articles are removed and clarifications posted.

By contrast, the PCC would be hard pushed to act on articles about Ian Davison, however, because there aren't any.

Davison had produced ricin and possessed 'documents which detailed how to make explosives and could by used in acts of terrorism'.

When he was arrested last June, the Mail called him a 'white supremacist' who wanted to 'poison ethnic minorities'.

Davison admitted the charges in court last week - yet the tabloid press has been absolutely silent since then.

It's a quite astonishing silence, which shows the stark contrast between how terrorists and terror suspects are treated by the press based on the colour of their skin and religion.

Indeed, the Mail spent more time covering the case of Cossor Ali, who was cleared of 'failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism'.

But according to the Mail, an innocent Muslim woman is more newsworthy than a white man who admits to producing ricin.

There's more on Davison and media coverage of ricin plots at Septicisle.

One more recommended read: over at the Beer Blog, Pete Brown has exposed the Mail's latest attempt to scare people about drink.

Recommended reading

5CC's excellent Did the Government really secretly plot to change the face of Britain? is a thorough dissection of all the nonsense that has appeared in the tabloids repeatedly over the last few months on the non-existent Government immigration plot.

The latest example of that was Melanie Phillips in the Mail yesterday, which Anton commented on at Enemies of Reason.

Anton has also exposed the Express' ludicrous Now migrants get a 'VIP club' front page - another immigration scare, another load of rubbish.

Over at Angry Mob, Uponnothing has looked at the Mail's latest target: disabled car parking spaces. He's also given his take on the MPs report on the press, and done an entertaining Daily Mail Reporter-spoof attack on Paul Dacre.

Back to 5CC and he's examined why a recent grant to the Christian Police Association has attracted none of the tabloid coverage that the Black, Trans or Muslim Police Associations regularly endure.

On a lighter note, Chris Spann wonders why the Mail seems so obsessed by the fact that Victoria Beckham has bunions. They've mentioned them 18 times in the last three months.

Conveying a message

A man has been sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder of his seven-week-old daughter.

Here's what the BBC thinks is the most important thing about the killer:


And here's what the Mail thinks is the most important thing about him:

Immigration whistleblowers: spot the difference

Remember Steve Moxon?

He was the Home Office whistleblower who, in March 2004, told a Sunday broadsheet about a scandal in the immigration system. Migrationwatch rushed out a comment on the case. The following day, the tabloids repeated the claims and that Tuesday, the Mail and the Express had the story on their front pages.

Have you heard of Louise Perrett?

She is a UK Border Agency whistleblower who, on Tuesday, told a daily broadsheet about a scandal in the immigration system. Migrationwatch never issued a comment. None of the tabloids wrote a single word about her claims.

Why the difference?

Because Moxon exposed behaviour that was letting migrants in to Britain without the proper checks.

Whereas Perrett claims:

asylum seekers are mistreated, tricked and humiliated by staff working for the UK Border Agency

And why would the anti-immigration papers be interested in that?

Her claims are shocking:

One manager said of the asylum-seeker clients: 'If it was up to me I'd take them all outside and shoot them.'

And:

If a case was difficult, Perrett claims, she was simply advised to refuse it and 'let a tribunal sort it out.'

And:

staff kept a stuffed gorilla, a 'grant monkey', which was placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application.

And:

one official boasted to her that he tested the claims of boys from African countries who said they had been forcibly conscripted as child soldiers by making them lie down on the floor and demonstrate how they shot at people in the bush.

One method used to determine the authenticity of an asylum seeker claiming to be from North Korea was to ask whether the person ate chop suey.

As yet, these allegations haven't been investigated or verified, but that never stopped the tabloid press rushing to repeat what Moxon said.

But his claims were something that they wanted to believe because it made the immigration system look bad, and it made it seem as if Britain was letting migrants in unchecked.

These allegations make asylum seekers look like they might be being badly treated, like they might actually be victims.

And that just doesn't fit the tabloid agenda. So they pretend it isn't happening.

Preferring instead to write about buying quiche. And eggs with extra yolks. Twice.

(Hat-tip to Duncan Stott)

Refugee Council research - ignored and misrepresented

The Refugee Council has published a new report on asylum seekers, written by Dr Heaven Crawley at Swansea University.

The report, 'Chance or Choice: Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK’, concludes:

• Over two thirds did not choose to come to the UK.
• Most only discovered they were going to the UK after leaving their country of origin.
• The primary objective for all those interviewed was reaching a place of safety.
• Around three quarters had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK – most had no expectation they would be given financial support.
• 90% were working in their country of origin and very few were aware they would not be allowed to work when they arrived in the UK.

Those findings directly challenge several anti-immigrant tabloid myths so it's not surprising that neither the Mail or Sun are covering the report at all.

Surprisingly, the Express website not only has an article on the findings, but it's a sympathetic one too:

It would be shocking if that headline were to appear in the print edition tomorrow because that's not the Richard Desmond line on immigration at all.

As is clear from the Daily Star:


The use of 'illegal immigrants' in the headline to a story about asylum seekers is a direct flouting of the PCC guidance on Refugees and Asylum Seekers which states:

The Commission is concerned that editors should ensure that their journalists covering these issues are mindful of the problems that can occur and take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology.

But to what does that headline refer? They put the word 'useless' in quote marks, yet this word does not appear to be used in the report, the summary or the press release. Or, indeed, in their own story.

The actual word that is used about the asylum laws is 'barbaric'. But the Star isn't likely to lead with that, is it?

The one slight downside to the report is the small sample. The findings are based on interviews with 43 refugees and asylum seekers. Nonetheless, that is still actual first-hand evidence. It's not like someone just plucking numbers out the air.

Mail says: Don't be taken in by health stories in the Mail

Don't be taken in by the celebrity quacks, says charity is the headline on an irony-free article by Fiona MacRae on the Mail website. It is reporting on Sense About Science's latest case file of celebrities talking about health and science without any evidence to back up their statements:

Every year we review celebrities’ dodgy science claims - from special diets and ‘miracle’ cures to chemicals, vaccines and evolution - and ask scientists what they should have said instead.

So MacRae looks at some of the weird claims made by celebs which Sense About Science have highlighted. One is from Roger Moore who:

claimed that eating foie gras can cause Alzheimer's, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, or 'a tasty way of getting terminally ill'.

In the section of MacRae's article titled 'How their theories fail to stack up' Moore's claim is totally dismissed:

FACT: There is no scientific evidence to prove that eating foie gras is responsible for any of the above diseases.

How strange then that Moore's claim originally appeared in an article he wrote for the, err, Mail.

Then there is Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty, stating that:

The carbon dioxide in fizzy drinks causes wrinkles.

The Mail retorts:

FACT: The amount of the gas in soft drinks is dwarfed by levels naturally produced by the body. In any case, scientists cannot see how it would age the skin.

But they failed to make that point back in April when Shetty said it in an interview with Mark Anstead. In the Mail.

And what about Denise Van Outen's suggestion that:

Deodorants contain chemicals linked to breast cancer.

MacRae writes:

FACT: The link has not been proven and suspect compounds are too large to enter the body.

But back in June, the Mail was too distracted by the half-naked publicity shots of Van Outen to notice what she was saying. So they mindlessly repeated her claims anyway.

Indeed, of the 14 articles that Sense About Science highlight in their latest bulletin, ten come from different publications ranging from the New York Times, Cosmo Girl, Observer, Guardian, New York Post, Telegraph, Daily Record, US News & World, Good Housekeeping and the Reading Chronicle.

The other four were all in the Mail.

MacRae writes:

From Megan Fox's ideas about vinegar (a weight-loss tonic, apparently) to Gwyneth Paltrow's warnings on pesticides, all have been lapped up by an adoring public.

And by 'adoring public' she means lazy Mail churnalists re-heating any old crap uttered by a sleb.

'Don't be taken in by the celebrity quacks', said the headline. That's advice the Mail should take onboard more than anyone.

For everyone else - don't get your health advice from the tabloid press.

(Many thanks to Tim Chapman for the tip)

Why is it so relevant?

When Brittany Murphy died, the Mail never ran a single headline along the lines of 'Straight actress found dead in her home at 32'.

So why this?:

The Great Silence

Earlier this week there was a noticeable silence from the media (except the Guardian and Press Gazette) following the award of nearly £800,000 to a former News of the World journo who suffered from a 'culture of bullying' led by former editor, now Conservative head of communications, Andy Coulson.

Given Coulson was Editor during the phone-hacking scandal, it seemed there were questions to be asked of him and his new political masters. But no-one wanted to ask them.

And it's not the only story to have been ignored this week.

Yesterday, a man admitted 22 charges, including six under the Terrorism Act, after 54 homemade ball-bearing and nail bombs were found in his West Yorkshire home, along with guns, ammunition and weapons manuals. The charges included:

• four counts of making explosives
• four counts of possessing explosives
• three counts of manufacturing prohibited weapons
• four counts of possession of prohibited weapons
• one count of possession of ammunition without a certificate.

Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that if this man was Muslim, this would be all over the media. But he isn't and so, apart from three Yorkshire papers, it hasn't been mentioned at all. By contrast, this Muslim woman only had a memory stick with explosives manuals on and the Mail reported that. But they ignored this.

And the reports from Hope Not Hate and Searchlight that this bombmaker (Terence Gavan) was also a member of the BNP should only heighten the news interest. Or so you would have thought...

At the start of October, this blog noted the desecration of Muslim graves in Southern Cemetery in Manchester. Although covered by the BBC, it was ignored by everyone else in the mainstream media.

Now, the BBC are reporting the graveyard has been targeted for a third time, as 20 headstones were pushed over. The BBC says:

Det Ch Insp Steve Eckersley called it "mindless racist behaviour" that was being treated as a hate crime. On 29 September, 26 Muslim headstones were vandalised and three days later 27 were targeted.

So at what point does this become news to the newspapers? Or is it because the targets are Muslims that it never does?

There was lots of coverage (300 articles on Google News) of the case of Phillip Laing, who was photographed peeing on a war memorial. The Mail ran five stories on him, including one revealing How one war memorial is desecrated in Britain every week.

But when there have been seventy-three acts of desecration in a single cemetery in around sixty days, the Mail doesn't think that is worth reporting.

They - and the rest of the print media - couldn't be more wrong.

A shooter's religion is only relevant when he's Muslim

A shooting at an office block in Florida comes one day after the shooting at an army base in Texas. Here's how the Mail is currently covering the two stories:

So while the religion of the first shooter is considered so important it makes the headline, the religion of the second is not mentioned at all.

Presumably, they don't think 'Jason Rodriguez' sounds like a Muslim name. And therefore, they don't give a damn what religion he is.

How the Mail and Sun reported the Nick Griffin court case

On Monday, the Daily Mail was reporting on the case of Tauriq Khalid, who was in court accused of racially abusing and threatening to kill BNP leader Nick Griffin. It appeared in the first section of the Mail website homepage, as one of their top stories, like this:

On the actual article, in the blue bar at the top of the screen, the 'court hears' bit is missing. Moreover, the headline has been changed to:

Yes, it's partly in quote marks - a favourite tabloid get-out to attribute to someone else a statement they believe - but there is still something very definite about the phrasing. Probaby because in the toss up between a Muslim and a white racist, the Mail would always side with the latter.

Khalid said he called Griffin a 'fucking wanker' and aimed a V-sign in his direction.

Griffin said Khalid called him a 'white bastard', made a gun with his fingers and, according to the BNP leader:

He shouted out, "Griffin, you bastard. I am going to..." but I didn't at the time catch it. But I took it as to "kill" or "shoot you"

So he admitted in court he didn't actually hear the alleged death threat.

The jury took a whole 45 minutes to find Khalid not guilty. Which means a court has listened to something Griffin had to say and didn't believe him. Imagine that.

But how did the Mail react to the news that Khalid was cleared of racist abuse?

Firstly, they couldn't even be bothered to give a named journalist the assignment. Rather than James Tozer, who wrote the original story, 'Daily Mail Reporter' did it instead.

Secondly, the story has not been on the Mail homepage at all today and wasn't last night either - in complete contrast to the high positioning of the 'claims'.

Thirdly, the headline on the article is this:


Notice how the possibly guilty 'Muslim' from the original has become an innocent 'Asian'. In fact, the word 'Muslim' is not used once in the entire article about the verdict. Can the Mail not bring itself to think a Muslim man might not be guilty of something? Or is it that Khalid is not in fact Muslim? None of the other newspaper stories about the verdict identify him as such - in which case why did the Mail claim he was in the original headline?

The differences between the two articles and the prominence given to them is stark. And, sadly, unsurprising.

Still, at least they covered the end of the case in some form. On the Sun's website, Griffin's claims were reported, but the verdict hasn't been mentioned at all.

Do you think the Mail is trying to suggest something?

Six stories from the current homepage of the Mail website:

Anyone would think the Mail is trying to imply Britain is over-run by criminal, benefit-scrounging immigrants and violent, would-be terrorist Muslims.

Oh wait...

And yet there is no mention on the Mail website of an incident from Rochdale where a 17 year old girl was:

subjected to racist taunts, including a chant of ‘BNP’ and obscenities.

Shortly after, the victim was grabbed by her headscarf by the boy and punched in the face by the girl, with such force that the pendant from her bracelet broke off and became stuck in the victim’s cheek.

It later had to be removed by doctors after the girl was taken to Rochdale Infirmary.

The girl:

sustained a fractured eye socket, a deep cut and severe bruising in the attack

The oldest of the gang of four attackers has pleaded guilty to public order offences and been fined. Of the rest:

The boy pleaded guilty to common assault, while the girl who punched the victim pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm.

The pair have been warned they could face custodial sentences when they are sentenced next month.

The other 16-year-old girl pleaded guilty to a public order offence.

Given their (questionable) front page today on random attacks by thugs, why is the Mail not interested in that case?

Why in their reporting of the racist murder of Mohammed al-Majed did they use a headline that implied one person was involved - Thug convicted of killing 16-year-year-old Arab student in racist attack - when three men had actually been convicted for their part in the attack (one for racially aggravated common assault and the third for wounding with intent)?

And what about the case of BNP activist and European Parliamentary candidate David Lucas, who has been charged with:

possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances, possession of an explosives substance without an explosives licence, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life, possession of ammunition without a firearms certificate and two counts of possession of prohibited ammunition.

Predictably, the Mail has forgotten to report on that, too.

Express turns comments from forum into 'story'

On 19 August, the Express and Star both carried a story about some comments posted on the forum of the Islamic Awakening website about the war in Afghanistan.

The Express' Sick fanatics cheer body bags begins:

British Muslim fanatics sparked fresh fury last night by praising Taliban “heroes” for sending our troops back from Afghanistan in body bags.

Of course, any time the word 'fury' turns up in a story, it immediately means they've phoned up some of their favourite quote whores and got some suitable 'outraged' quotes (see TaxPayers Alliance, Campaign for Political Correctness, Philip Davies MP).

There are many problems with this story, and the way it has been presented.

Let's be blunt - running stories based on a few comments from a forum is pathetic. If you look hard enough you could find someone saying anything you want on a forum somewhere. It really doesn't mean anything.

The Express then says:

Last night there were calls by senior politicians for the Home Office to crack down on the hate-filled rants that will distress even further the relatives of troops who gave their lives fighting the Taliban.

This is a ridiculous statement. If these 'hate-filled rants' are so distressing, why are the Express and Star going to the trouble of reprinting them? It's more than likely that the families of soldiers aren't reading the Islamic Awakening website (or have even heard of it).

But the Star and the Express sell 1.6m copies a day. So who is really causing the distress?

The Star goes on to blame favoured hate-figure Abu Hamza in their headline Hooky rants over 'body bags' toll. But the story offers only this:

Meanwhile sick rants have been posted on websites linked to hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza.

Which is not really the same thing. Indeed, the picture caption on the story admits:

Abu Hamza is said to have launched a sick rant

'Said to have'? Hardly conclusive then is it? So why bring him into the story at all?

And then there are those comments that the Express seems so bothered about. Are they really 'hate-filled rants'? Take the third and fourth ones they mention:

“Waziri” said: “By command of Allah, the invading forces will be forced to withdraw humiliated and defeated by a group of men who between them do not possess even one transport helicopter.”

“Noorah”, said: “They are really getting whooped. Don’t know how they think they can win.”

Are those really 'hate-filled rants'?

And then there is the first one they list which reads:

“Isma’eel”, said: “Man, they really are dropping like flies over there lol [laugh out loud].”

Except, that isn't all that Isma'eel said. They conveniently ignored the rest of his post:

The ppl of the UK need to wake up and start demanding for their sons and daughters to return home instead of fighting in a useless war. They've been lied to for so many years.

A sentiment that many people would agree with, and which is nothing like a 'hate-filled rant'.

Indeed, Express columnist Leo McKinstry said in his 20 August article:

Ministers in charge of the campaign have been both incompetent and deceitful. Not only have they systematically failed to provide sufficient resources for the fight but they have also lied to the public on an epic scale...

We should bring home all our services personnel immediately.

Which sounds very similar to the 'vile' message of the 'fanatic' Isma'eel.

Oops.

Although McKinstry often does write hate-filled rants against Muslims and immigrants, the Express thinks those are acceptable. So why is the Express and McKinstry allowed their free speech so say what they want, but other people - namely Muslims - are not?

Recommended read

The Daily Quail has done a good job of research, highlighting the different reactions from Mail readers to people involved in litigation - when the person suing is white, they support them, when they ain't, they don't.

Is Media Monkey reading this?

On Friday, I posted that Mail film reviewer Chris Tookey had included in his review of Antichrist a none-too-subtle dig at his Mail colleague Christopher Hart, who laughably dismissed the film without having seen it.

It was somewhat surprising to open yesterday's MediaGuardian and find a Media Monkey Diary piece which sounded very familiar.

My post:

Which begs the question - why the fuss? But then the most interesting paragraph of all. He says:

In its defence, Antichrist turns out to be not the picture that I have seen vilified in the press, sometimes by writers who lack any context of recent cinema with which to compare it, and in at least one case by someone who hadn’t even taken the elementary step of seeing it.

Who does he mean? Surely not Christopher Hart? Writing in the, er, Daily Mail.

Media Monkey's post:

In Friday's Daily Mail, film critic Chris Tookey got terribly worked up in his review of Lars von Trier's Antichrist, describing it as "not the picture that I have seen vilified in the press, sometimes by writers who lack any context of recent cinema with which to compare it, and in at least one case by someone who hadn't even taken the elementary step of seeing it". Who could this frothing buffoon be? Quite possibly Christopher Hart, who in an op-ed rant on Monday declared: "You do not need to see Antichrist to know how revolting it is. I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I." Where did the piece appear? In the Daily Mail, of course.

A coincidence? I think we should be told, etc...

Mail supports man in discrimination case - because he's Christian

Everything about the way the Mail presents the story Christian teacher tells of race slurs by pupils aged 8 tells you it believes him over anyone else.

The story is of a teacher - Nicholas Kafouris - at a Tower Hamlets primary school who says he was forced out of his job after highlighting racism among kids at the school. He claims eight and nine year old Muslim children said things such as: "We want to be Islamic bombers when we grow up", "the Twin Towers bombers are heroes and martyrs", "we hate the Jews" and "we hate the Christians".

The picture of Kafouris which illustrates the story shows him sat in a very demure, sympathetic pose. The article consists mostly of his claims. Criticisms of him are mentioned, but dismissed on his say so:

Mr Kafouris, who is unmarried and has no children, was also reprimanded for handling a discussion about religion with a child 'inappropriately', which he denies.

He says assistant head Margaret Coleman accused him of shouting at pupils and telling them Muslims had produced suicide bombers - claims he rejects.

And the official line is relegated to one short quote from Tower Hamlets Council which is the last sentence of the article.

The comments are mostly in support of the teacher and along the lines of: 'Another nail in the coffin of this once & green pleasant land'. The entirely reasonable statement: 'Now lets hear the other side of the story', is marked -607.

It's funny too, how different the reactions are to this man taking his employer to court over claims of discrimination with Javid Iqbal and Tariq Dost because they were treated as whingeing money grabbers who should just get on with their lives.

Wonder why this Christian is not dismissed in the same way?

Recommended read

Please read Know Your Enemy by Mehdi Hasan which appeared in the New Statesman a few days ago. It makes a compelling case about the variations in reporting on terrorists when they're Muslim and when they're not (as noted here before). As the article begins:

Why isn’t the trial of a man charged with preparing for terror attacks using tennis-ball bombs being reported? He’s not a bearded Muslim

Littlejohn attacks media over Jackson coverage, omits current and former bosses

Richard Littlejohn's latest column focuses on the outpourings of emotion following the death of Michael Jackson. Even in that he manages to include a bit of gay-bashing, referring to the 'provisional wing of the Friends of Dorothy,' whatever the hell that means.

Never one to shy away from his enormous ego, he claims he is 'someone steeped in the history of Motown'. Even if he does say so himself.

Using this 'expertise' Littlejohn goes on to claim Jackson is 'a fairly minor figure compared with Smokey, Diana Ross, Marvin Gaye, Holland-Dozier-Holland, the Tops and the Temps'. I may not be as 'steeped in the history of Motown' as our world authority, but I would have said that Jackson became much more of a pop figure than a Motown one, so the comparison (and showing off) is a bit pointless.

Our 'expert' then goes on to dismiss Jackson further, claiming his:

global fame and fortune was predicated upon a single album, Thriller, which owes as much to Quincy Jones's brilliant production and John Landis's groundbreaking video as it does to the songs themselves.

As if nothing before or after Thriller was of any importance and, in any case, that album's success wasn't really down to him anyway.

Thriller is the biggest selling album of all time, so we have heard repeatedly over the last few days, but given his Off the Wall - which came out three years before Thriller - sold 20 million copies and Bad, five years later, sold 30 million, Thriller doesn't appear to be the be all and end all. Perhaps Littlejohn isn't as 'steeped' in knowledge about Jackson's music as he likes to think.

He then switches his attention to the media, and follows in the great Mail tradition of bashing the BBC: 'As usual, the BBC went bonkers, with one reporter even wearing a black tie.' He neglects to mention that Sky had just as much coverage on its news channel, although this surely has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he used to have a debate show on Sky News.

He then has a pop at the printed press for all their coverage:

Newspapers followed suit. Rainforests have been felled to churn out special souvenir supplements, which will end up as cat litter.

Of course the Mail would never go overboard in its coverage. If you put Michael Jackson's name into the Mail website search engine, there is simply no way that you would find some 90 articles that mention him since his death five days ago (including, at time of writing, four in their 'top story' section).

And the Mail certainly wouldn't have put Jackson on the front page for three days running from 27-29 June.

And the Mail's star columnist definitely wouldn't dream of indulging in such 'bonkers' coverage with 909 words of his own on the subject.

Oh wait.

Terror arrests you might have missed

A week ago a father and son were arrested in County Durham under the Terrorism Act. Police said that 'suspected ricin was found in a jam jar' in the home of a 'suspected white supremacist'; the son was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and later re-arrested under the Terrorism Act.

The Mail stated that they were involved in a plot 'poisoning ethnic minorities' but this is based on a much vaguer statement by the police that this was 'one of our lines of inquiry'. (The Sun and Star don't mention a possible target, as the Mail and Express do.)

As with any terror arrests, these claims should be treated with some caution. But what is so noticeable about this story is how un-noticeable it was. The Mail's coverage is here, the Sun's here, the Star's here and the Express' here and here.

But compare that with the coverage with that two months ago when there were arrests in Manchester of a group of young Muslims under the Terror Act. That was on the front pages and full of lurid details of a plot to blow up football stadia and shopping centres. None of which, of course, was true. But the difference in the level of coverage is striking. And maybe the 'ricin' plot will also turn out to be no such thing.

But if the police had arrested a Muslim father and son, with ricin in a jam jar, who wanted to kill whites, imagine the coverage that would have received. Why should there be this difference?

As if to prove the point, the Mail gave undue prominence yesterday to the story that two men on the missing Air France flight apparently shared names with suspected terrorists. One day later, the paper reports that the two men have been 'cleared' (the original story has been modified so no longer exists, but a version from the Evening Standard site remains).

But 'cleared'? Cleared of what? Surely these two dead men should never have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud before the truth was discovered. And given their exoneration came only a day later, it proves it wasn't exactly difficult to disprove the slur.

Yet once again the Islamophobic agenda of the media takes precedence over such things as fact checking.

(Thanks to Enemies of Reason for writing a post which reminded me to write about the ricin arrests!)