Express contradicts itself on burkha bans

Yesterday, it was slightly surprising to see the Express reporting this:


After all, on 24 June they claimed:


It's almost as if that totally misleading headline was designed to create a new 'EU bans...' myth irrespective of the facts.

Who would have thought the Express would do that?

'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)

'I'm not racist, but...'

From the letters page of Monday's Daily Mail, in response to the 'swimming pool cover-up' story:

What is this country coming to when the windows of a public swimming pool in Walsall are blacked out to protect the modesty of Muslim women?

We seem to be letting Muslims take over this country. We appear to be afraid to upset them.

If they don't like the way we lead our lives, let them go and live in a country that panders to their religion.

We are a Christian country, our laws and way of life are built on our religion.

I'm not racist, but I'm getting fed up with opening the newspaper every day to read that we're bowing and scraping to the Muslim community.

Would they get so much freedom of speech in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

Edd Butler, Shoeburyness, Essex

Those editorials in full

The front pages of today's Daily Express and Daily Star were covered in an earlier post.

As if those headlines weren't bad enough, here are the editorials that accompanied them.

The Express:

OUR MULTI-RACIAL SOCIETY NOW NEEDS TIME TO ADJUST

There is no point in hankering after a return to the ethnically homogeneous Britain of the Forties. It is never coming back.

Nor is there much point in complaining that some of those who were pilloried as racists for claiming that immigrants were “taking over” their neighbourhoods in the Sixties and Seventies were telling the truth – though they were.

A new study predicts that the ethnic minority share of the population will soar to 20 per cent over the next four decades. Much of the increase will be down to very high birth rates among some ethnic communities already established here.

The transition to a multi-racial society has happened remarkably quickly and without the permission of the public being sought by the political elite.

Yet things are not all bad. Many immigrant communities and families are making a big contribution to society and are now over-represented in the professions.

Others, alas, have high rates of welfare dependency and criminality. Some have fully integrated into mainstream British culture, others are almost fully insulated from it.

At its best, modern Britain is more culturally stimulating and free than was the case 70 years ago. But at its worst it is a country of resentful strangers living in close proximity to each other but with little in common.

What Britain needs now is a long pause in immigration to allow a core common culture that all ethnic groups observe to become established. Britons old and new need time to get to know each other.

Last week, the Star said there was 'no room for gays'. Today, there's no room for anyone new:

No MORE...WE'RE FULL

In just two generations the very face of Britain will change beyond recognition.

Research reveals that one in five of us will be from an ethnic minority, more than double the current levels.

The groups growing fastest are white, from Europe and America.

Britain has a long and proud tradition of being multi-cultural.

But in recent years the vast numbers of newcomers from Eastern Europe has put our services under intolerable pressure.

Our entire support system, including housing, schools and hospitals, has been pushed to the very limit.

We need a total halt to immigration - now.

Richard Desmond attacks 'ethnics' and 'asylum scroungers'

Today's Daily Star:

Today's Daily Express:


Do you think Richard Desmond, the owner of these two rags, is trying to telling us something?

Anton at Enemies of Reason has blogged about the Express' front page. He says:

Leave aside that we're all 'ethnics' of one mongrel sort or another; this makes it quite clear what's going on. There are whites and there are 'ethnics'. How much more explicit does it have to be before we start calling it what it is?

As Anton points out, the Express illustrate this 'vile story' with this image of Muslim women:


Yet the article, based on population forecasts from the University of Leeds about what might happen in 2051, clearly says:

The White British and Irish ethnic groupings are expected to grow very slowly, while the Other White category is projected to grow the fastest, driven by immigration from Europe, the US and Australasia.

Funny how the don't use pictures of French, American or Australian women, isn't it?

In the last week we've had 'Muslims force pool cover-up', 'Now asylum if you're gay' and now this.

Maybe they should change their claim to the World's Nastiest Newspaper.

As for the Star, the story of Abdi and Sayrug Nur, who are unemployed and have seven children, has been doing the rounds for a few days, since the family moved into a house Kensington which the papers claim is worth £2m. The Sun, Mail and Mirror have all written about it.

Yet the Star is claiming sole responsibility for having the family 'booted out':

Ministers last night vowed to kick out a family on benefits from a £2million home after a hard-hitting Daily Star campaign.

Your favourite newspaper intervened to stop Somali spongers Abdi and Sayrug Nur continuing to milk the system.

Alas, a few sentences later:

We demanded answers from the Department for Work and Pensions and they have agreed to evict the family.

Officials said they would remove the Nurs when the new rules come into force next April.

So the Nurs will apparently be moved when the rules change next April. Funny the Star did say that it would be in nine months time when it probably would have happened without the Star's 'hard-hitting campaign' anyway.

And look again at the headline '£2m asylum scrounger'. £2m represents the value of the house they live in, so he hasn't 'scrounged' £2m. The papers are up-in-arms about the £2,000 a week the local council is paying for the house - but that goes straight to the owners, so he doesn't get that either. (The Mail claims the rent had been £1,050 per week, but this was raised to £2,000, the maximum available under housing benefit rules, but there's little anger directed at the owners of the house.)

Also 'asylum'. Nur sought asylum in the UK in 1999 after working for the Red Cross in Somalia. It was granted and so now he is a refugee. But the Star and its ilk want to associate 'asylum' with 'scrounging' and so continue to label him as that.

And clearly the Desmond papers want to continue to demonise Muslims, foreigners, immigrants, 'ethnics' for their own miserable ends.

(Jonathan has also written about the Express front page here)

Council doesn't 'force' schools to do anything about Ramadan

So soon after the 'Muslims force pool cover-up' story that wasn't quite true, a similar story surfaces in the Mail:


Telegraph:

Star:

Express:

and on the BBC:

The wording of some of these headlines, as in the swimming pool cover-up one, suggests this is something being 'forced' on people to 'appease' the whims of Muslims.

Here's how the Star reports it:

Headteachers have been told to stop sex education lessons during Ramadan to avoid offending Muslims.

Council bosses are also set to enforce strict rules to ban swimming lessons and even exams during the Muslim holy month.

Now it is worth skipping straight to the end of the Express' article to show how accurate all this is:

Labour councillor Ruth Rosenau, said: “It is just asking schools to be more aware. We are not trying to impose any rules.”

A council spokesman yesterday stressed it was up to individual headteachers whether or not to implement the guidance.

Ah. And this comes just a few paragraphs after the Express calls it a 'diktat'.

So Stoke-on-Trent Council issue some guidance which schools can implement or completely ignore, and this is turned into headlines about what schools are being 'forced' to do because of them Muslims.

(It is reminiscent of the 'England shirts banned from pubs' headlines which sprung up before the World Cup, a deliberate misreporting of some police guidance which landlords could listen to, or not.)

But once it's clear that schools do not have to abide by this guidance, the outrage inherent in these articles looks as hollow as usual.

The council document is actually made up of extracts from a 2007 Muslim Council of Britain report Towards Greater Understanding: Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools.

The elements of the guidance the media has picked up on - about exams, swimming and sex education - are all listed in the MCB's booklet as 'features of good practice'.

But neither they nor the council in Stoke-on-Trent are demanding they all be adopted. Phrases such as 'appropriate consideration' and 'try to avoid being scheduled' are evident; phrases such as 'we demand' are not.

For example, on swimming:

In general, participation in swimming is an acceptable activity whilst fasting.

However, for many pupils this activity may prove to be an issue, as the potential for swallowing water is very high. Some pupils or parents consider the risk too great and may wish to avoid swimming whilst fasting. Others may take the view that as swallowing water is unintentional it does not break the fast.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.

And on exams:

It is inevitable that certain statutory and internal school examinations may fall during Ramadan. Schools should give appropriate consideration when scheduling internal examinations, since the combination of preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils.

Several of the headlines refer to 'avoiding insulting/offending Muslims'. It is a nasty little phrase that's become all too popular with stories such as this.

But are these suggestions about 'avoiding offending Muslims', or about schools being sensitive to the religious beliefs and wellbeing of their pupils? As 5CC says, why is it the latter is so often reported as the former by the tabloids, and blown out of all proportion?

And they're blown out of proportion for a reason. The tabloids know this 'special treatment for minorities' narrative goes down very well with their readers - never mind that most of it is highly exaggerated if not outright lies.

Yet believe it or not, some of this reporting is actually a very slight improvement on media coverage three years ago when the MCB report first came out. The Express claimed the MCB wanted to:

Ban un-Islamic schools

and had drawn up proposals that were disgracefully labelled as:

calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions

If this blog had existed then, that article would almost certainly have been mentioned...

UPDATE: 5CC did exist in 2007 and did blog about the Express' article. He called it 'bullshit'.

(Hat-tips to 5CC, Liberal Conspiracy and readers Chris and Midge)

Express publishes three apologies - for one story

On Friday 9 July, the Express published the following apology:

In an article published on this website on 27 December 2009 until 15 January 2010, entitled “Jet bomb ordered by 9/11 spiritual leader”, we incorrectly described the charity Interpal as “Hamas-supporting”.

As such the article would have wrongly been understood to mean that Interpal and its trustees provided support for Hamas notwithstanding that Hamas is deemed a terrorist organisation and thereby were aiding terrorism.

We accept that this is wrong and neither Interpal nor its Trustees support Hamas.

We wish to apologise to Interpal and its Trustees and are happy to set the record straight.

If the 27 December 2009 article 'Jet bomb ordered by 9/11 spiritual leader' sounds familiar, that's because the Express has already apologised for it twice before.

They apologised to the East London Mosque on 15 March and they apologised and paid 'substantial' libel damages to four Trustees of the the Ummah Welfare Trust on 15 April. And now this.

To say sorry for getting a story so completely wrong is one thing. To do it three times for one article is something else. The journalist responsible, Ted Jeory, must be so proud.

And the Express still claims it's the World's Greatest Newspaper.

(Hat-tip to exclarotive)

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.

What a difference a day makes

Daily Mail, 9 July 2010:

Pressure mounts on 'cavalier' Gove as Cabinet colleague criticises school blunders

Pressure on Education Secretary Michael Gove intensified today after he was criticised by a Cabinet colleague over his mishandling of the classroom-building programme.

Mr Gove will embark on a tour of the country to say sorry in person after giving schools false hope that their projects would be spared the axe...

Mr Gove, who was branded a 'miserable pipsqueak' in parliament over a series of blunders he made with the axed £55bn scheme, will go to nine schools in Sandwell, West Midlands and one in Doncaster, South Yorkshire to say sorry.

Daily Mail, 9 July 2010:

Councils caught up in school building cuts fiasco prepare to sue after Gove gaffe (... and the builders could be next)

Beleaguered education secretary Michael Gove faces being sued by dozens of councils facing cuts to their school building programmes.

His department could also face legal action from builders who had signed contracts for new schools which have now been suspended half way through.

It is the latest fiasco to hit Mr Gove, who earlier this week was forced to apologise after giving 30 schools false hope that they would not be axed.

Daily Mail editorial, 8 July 2010:

A promising start

At last! After 13 years in which Labour placed social engineering and pupil-power above education, common sense is breaking out in Britain’s classrooms...

The Mail applauds Education Secretary Michael Gove on a promising start.

No room for tolerance

Writing for the Independent, freelance journalist Samuel Muston says:

The news that two gay asylum seekers fighting deportation have been given leave to stay in UK by the Supreme Court, is a welcome one.

The men, from Cameroon and Iran respectively, sought to challenge the previous government’s contention that they had no grounds for asylum as they could move “elsewhere” in their home states and be “discreet” about their sexuality...

This, then, is a good day for justice, a good day for compassion.

The tabloids, of course, weren't quite so sure this was a 'good day':



It's really, really hard to know where to begin. It's like wading into a stinking cesspool. Thankfully, Anton Vowl (here and here), Jonathan at No Sleep 'Til Brooklands and Dan Hollingsworth have already written blog posts about the coverage and they're all well worth reading.

But here's a few other observations.

First, Lord Roger admitted in his ruling that his comments about gay men going to Kylie concerts and drinking cocktails were 'trivial stereotypical examples'. But perhaps he should have been more media savvy and known that the intolerant, racist, homophobic tabloid press were going to leap on this point as a way of making the asylum system seem absurd - just as they did with that lie about the man who was (not) saved from deportation solely by his cat.

'Now' asylum seekers get to stay because of Kylie! You couldn't make it up!

The Express emphasise this point by saying 'Now...', which tabloids use at the start of a headline as shorthand for 'Look what stupid thing is going to happen now...'

Second, the Express' jumbled headline - and the tone of the other coverage - is totally misleading. The judgment doesn't mean every asylum seeker who is (or, in the tabloid mindset, claims to be) gay will be allowed to stay automatically, no matter how strong their actual case is.

The Express' ludicrous poll asks: 'Should you get asylum just for being gay?' This isn't the issue at all - as the writers of this muck well know. The issue is that certain countries are persecuting, imprisoning, flogging and executing homosexuals and that is a perfectly reasonable basis for them to seek asylum elsewhere.

And, as Jonathan says:

It's a thorny issue, so instead of arguing with the decision on moral or ethical grounds, which they can't really do without looking like they might have some kind of problem with gays and foreigners, just moan about how it obviously means that by 2015 the country will be sinking into the sea under the sheer weight of Iranians ostentatiously brandishing Scissor Sisters albums to try and pass as gay.

Third, the newspapers, the people leaving comments on the articles, and the two gobshites who pop up - tabloid favourites Andrew Green from Migrationwatch and MP Philip Davies - all suggest this ruling will, to quote the Star, 'open the floodgates'.

On the Sky News press preview last night, presenter Anna Botting suggested this would mean asylum seekers would now arrive in Britain and 'pass the gay ticket over' - whatever the hell that means.

But there's something deeply troubling about this view because behind it is the idea that asylum seekers are somehow looking for an angle. It's a belief based on the assumption that since asylum seekers aren't really fleeing persecution, they'll come to Britain and come up with any excuse going to be able to stay. It says: 'Now' they're all going to pretend to be gay if they think it'll work. This says much about the ground on which the asylum debate takes place.

Fourth, the attitudes of these newspapers are, of course, rooted in an anti-immigrant viewpoint.

So the Mail editorial says:

For at this time when our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all gay asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries.

Where are we to draw the line? This is all about numbers and a small island’s ability to absorb an ever-increasing population.

But the Express is rather more blunt:

Of course homosexuals across the globe should be able to live free from persecution but their right to do so should not take precedence in British law over the right of the British people not to have their country overrun by foreigners.

And not just overrun by foreigners but overrun by 'gay' foreigners.

The Express' sister paper, the Star, managed to top that and came up with a depressing, and disturbing, headline:


This really is grotesque. There are many, many reasons why Richard Desmond is a completely unfit person to be running two national newspapers and that putrid headline can be added to the list.

Given the history of the Star - who have very obviously labelled Muslims and immigrants as not 'us' - it would be generous to think this headline is only about yesterday's judgment. You can't help but feel it is aimed a little more widely than that. As Refugee Action tweeted:

The Daily Star thinks their headline 'No room for gays' is acceptable in 21st century Britain. We think not.

The editors of these tabloids know articles such as these - inflammatory, scaremongering, intolerant - push the buttons of their readers. Unfortunately, most have been so brainwashed by the daily drivel they are fed by these wretched publications that they believe it all at face value. Reading their comments is a disheartening experience and any number of them could have been highlighted here. But we'll stick with two.

This one, because it gives an idea of the cluelessness of many of them:


And this one because it highlights the dangers and possible consequences of such coverage:

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)

We published 'wholly inaccurate' quotes, but it wasn't our fault

A week ago, the Scottish Daily Express published the following apology:

On June 26, 2010, we published an article on Page 9 of the Scottish Daily Express concerning the grave of ex-footballer Colin Hendry’s late wife, Denise.

Quotes attributed to former friend Hector McFarlane, commenting on funeral arrangements and a headstone for Mrs Hendry’s grave, were supplied to us by Watson’s, a Blackpool-based news agency and used by us in good faith.

We now accept the comments attributed to Mr McFarlane were wholly inaccurate.

We apologise to Mr McFarlane and his family for any distress the article may have caused.

Once again, we see a paper blaming someone else for a cock-up so as to divert attention from the fact they didn't bother checking the story before they published it.

(The original article has been removed but a cached version is here. A response from Hendry, denying the claims, was published a couple of days later)

Non-story about local pool forces journalism black out

A classic 'look what those dastardly Muslims are up to now' front page from the Express today:


It's also one of those classic examples of churnalism. It's a story that starts life in the regional press and then gets picked up by the nationals because it covers one of their favourite issues - one they know will push the buttons of their readers.

On Saturday, the local Express and Star explained it had been contacted by a few users of Darlaston swimming pool in Walsall who were critical of a new film that had been placed on windows for privacy reasons.

That wouldn't be newsworthy, but for the fact that some - although, according to the Council, not all - of the requests for the change had come from the Muslim community.

And suddenly, the tabloids are full of headlines about Muslims 'forcing' their views on 'us'.

The churnalism was obvious - the same people, saying the same things, appeared in every article. Some of them were locals, but inevitably the TaxPayers' Alliance popped up as well.

Matthew Elliott, the TPA's chief executive went so far as to say:

It is bizarre to spoil a swimming pool like this just because of the demands of a very small group...it makes a big difference to the experience of using the pool.

An attempt to find out if Elliott had been to the pool to see if it was actually 'spoiled' and what the 'big difference' was went unanswered, unsurprisingly. But they got their name in the paper again so they're happy.

By yesterday, the BBC, Mail and Sun had run the story and today the Mirror, Star and the Express followed.

None of them had gone to the centre, or done any actual journalism (copying and pasting quotes and phoning the TPA is not journalism, although you wouldn't know it from many papers today).

Every headline suggested that this happened solely because of Muslims. The Star and Mirror didn't bother to include the quote which pointed out:

"We received a request from the Muslim Community to protect the modesty of swimmers. There were also requests made by some non-Muslim users as well."

Most of the others left this until the end of their article. It's not convenient to their narrative to reveal that non-Muslims would be involved, so they try their best to ignore it, hoping their readers do the same.

The Express' online article carried a headline which talked of 'appeasing Muslims' - a word that seems to have been deliberately chosen.

The Mail and Sun both hugely over-exaggerated the extent of the changes. Swimmers plunged into dark after council covers swimming pool windows 'to protect Muslim women's modesty' claimed the Mail. Pool blacked out for Muslim swim ranted the Sun.

'Blacked out'? Really?

The Sun said:

the local council has covered all 250 windows at the centre in Darlaston...the move has plunged the pool into permanent darkness

The Mail:

council staff have covered 250 windows with dark-tinted film

The Mirror agreed that:

All 250 windows at the pool have been covered

This claim about the gloominess was boosted by one of the (apparently) furious leisure centre users who claimed the pool looked no different now as it did to her when she had cataracts.

But it wasn't true. The Mail (and the print edition of the Express) included pictures which clearly showed it wasn't 'all' the windows that were now covered:


So, this afternoon, Walsall Council issued a statement, attacking the:

inaccurate and misleading media coverage of work carried out at Darlaston Leisure Centre.

Have all 250 windows been blacked out? Not quite:

The council has come under fire for applying a translucent film to 58 window panels

Ah. But that still means it's pitch black inside, no?

No:

Anyone who will now use the pool will see that it's not in darkness at all. It’s like cling film, which allows in natural light; so this suggestion that its windows are blacked out are misleading and inaccurate.

What about the Express' claim that the Muslims 'forced' this to happen?

The funding for this work comes from Area Based Grant from the Government. We asked local people how public services could be more responsive to the needs of different cultural groups...

Adjustments are made to facilities from time to time in response to suggestions from people in the community.

We agreed it was a good idea and all users will benefit from these improvements.

So the Council responds to suggestions from local people and this is a reason to splash it on the front page and pour scorn on it.

As Councillor Anthony Harris says:

"The same measures were taken at Bloxwich Leisure Centre around 10 years ago, in response to requests from the community there. It's a shame that such minor adjustments, aimed at encouraging more people to enjoy a healthy pastime, have provoked such a negative response."

In essence, a leisure centre has added a few privacy measures to a swimming pool after suggestions from Muslims and non-Muslims.

The tabloids turn this into: Muslims force Council to black out all windows in a swimming pool so they can swim while ruining it for everyone else.

The backlash against Muslims on the newspaper comment pages has been as vicious, intolerant and ignorant as you might expect.

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)

Star clarifies front page story

On 25 June, the Daily Star published this two-sentence clarification in a small box in the top-right corner of page two:


Being both very small and right next to page three, it's unlikely many Star readers would have noticed it.

They probably didn't have much difficulty spotting the original article on 24 February, however:


Is this really what the Press Complaints Commission means by 'due prominence'?

(Roy Greenslade considers whether newspapers should mention that a correction has been brokered by the PCC.)