Peanut paste and the 'royal baby'

On 27 April, the Daily Star proclaimed:

But when they said 'Royal baby on way' what they actually meant was 'Andrew Morton's got a book coming out and he thinks Kate might get pregnant within a year'.

Forward to July and the People asked:

The paper said:

The warning comes after reports that Kate, 29, is due to meet her gynaecologist Alan Farthing in the next few weeks to receive fertility advice.

But experts last night told The People that they would urge Kate to pile on the pounds to increase her chances.

On Friday, the Sun had the latest:

A pregnancy riddle, eh? And what's the Sun's evidence for this speculation:

The Duchess of Cambridge was at the centre of a pregnancy riddle last night after refusing to eat peanut paste during a royal engagement.

Kate, 29, turned down the protein snack as she and hubby William joined the Danish Crown Prince and his wife at a famine relief depot. For years government experts urged mums-to-be to avoid peanuts, fearing a link to allergies.

For years they did, but that advice was changed in 2009.

So, she didn't eat some peanut paste. Is that it? Well no, there's an anonymous 'onlooker' too:

One onlooker said: "The Duchess does not have a nut allergy, nor is it like her to appear rude. The only explanation is that she is pregnant and has been told — like many expectant mothers — to avoid nuts."

The 'only explanation'? Not according to the 'senior Palace source' quoted two sentences later:

"Pregnancy is not the only explanation. The Duchess is still new to appearing in front of the cameras at official events.

"It is perfectly plausible that she may not yet feel comfortable eating while the cameras are focused on her. This is not the first time she's turned down food while under the spotlight."

MailOnline repeated the Sun's story on Saturday, and then added an extra detail on Sunday:

The 29-year-old was seen patting or holding her stomach at least a dozen times during a two-hour visit to an aid centre in Copenhagen.

Despite all the cameras, the Mail has only published one photo of her doing this.  

Still, perhaps the Sunday papers could shed some light. The Daily Star Sunday said:

Despite the headline, the article stated:

Kate and Wills have chosen a posh palace as the dream home for their prospective baby...

The official announcement of their change of address adds to speculation Kate, 29, is pregnant – or will be soon.

But The People was adamant: Kate is not pregnant:

Prince William and wife Kate Middleton have ­decided against having their first child until after the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, The People can ­reveal.

Speculation that Kate, 29, is pregnant after refusing to eat ­peanut butter ­during a royal ­engagement in Demark was firmly quashed yesterday.

And The People can confirm the couple have put off plans to have children until after June 2012 ­ because they do not want to overshadow the Jubilee celebrations.

So she might be pregnant. Or she might be not be. Once she is, it's likely we're going to find out officially. Do we really have to have endless speculation until that time?

Wine and breast cancer

Daily Express, 1 October 2011:

Daily Express, 2 November 2011:

(See also the Mail's versions of the same stories)

Star apologises to hair clinic

On Wednesday 2 November, the Daily Star published the following apology:

In yesterday’s Daily Star, we wrongly stated that Wayne Rooney’s hair transplant was carried out at a clinic run by Dr Bessam Farjo and that Dr Farjo had treated Wayne.

We accept that this was wrong. Wayne has never had any treatment carried out by Dr Farjo or any clinic run by him.

His transplant was carried out at The Harley Street Hair Clinic, to whom we apologise unreservedly.

This appeared on page 3, the same page as the original article, which ran the day before.

According to Farjo:

I had originally provided comments on the subject for another interview regarding the rise in popularity of hair transplant surgery since celebrities, like Wayne, have spoken so candidly about their experiences in the national press...

While it’s great to see the media taking such an interest in my field of work, I was disappointed to see that the journalist [Aaron Tinney] had mistakenly named me as the surgeon responsible for Rooney’s new hairline.

'Misleading and alarmist'

The front page of Thursday's Express contained yet another health scare:

'Britain on alert for new super-flu: Killer virus could spread in 24 hours', it screamed.

Jo Willey's article begins:

A new strain of killer flu which could spread to Britain within 24 hours is “one of the biggest biological threats of our time”, experts warned.

The alert comes after people started to fall victim to seasonal flu and the more virulent swine flu at the same time.

The Mail followed it up with the article 'Fears of new deadly super-flu which 'could spread to Britain within 24 hours''.

The 'could' is important because the 'deadly' 'new super-flu' - which Britain is 'on alert for' - isn't known to exist.

Secondly, the people who have 'started to fall victim' to seasonal and swine flu at the same time, are two people who fell victim in 2009.

In Cambodia. 

As the NHS Behind the Headlines report explains:

The research the news was based on was actually a small, but important study that had examined a Cambodian patient who became unwell during the swine flu pandemic of 2009. Examining the man and four of his contacts, scientists determined that two of the five subjects were infected with both swine flu and a seasonal flu virus that was circulating in the environment at that time. None of the five infected individuals required hospitalisation and all made a full recovery.

This is valuable research in the light of the very real public health threat faced by flu pandemics; particularly as co-infection also offers the possibility for different viruses to combine their genetic material and produce new strains. However, such a ‘super-flu’ or ‘killer-flu’ has not been found, and is merely a possibility.

So what of the Express' front page headline?

Although news coverage has reflected the findings of this study accurately and quoted flu experts, the overall emphasis of reports has been misleading and alarmist. Their headlines suggest that a “deadly super flu” has been found and is ready to spread to the UK...[but] these are laboratory findings from five people infected in 2009 with swine flu and/or seasonal flu. None had severe illness or required hospitalisation, and none died from a ‘deadly new super-flu’.

Five months on, Mail corrects front page splash

On Friday 27 May, the Daily Mail claimed the 'UK doles out more aid than any other country'. They were so sure of this 'fact' they put it on the front page:

At the time, Full Fact questioned the accuracy of this claim:

While the UK is the most generous G8 economy in international aid relative to GNI, it does not give the most aid of any country in the world, neither relative to GNI or in absolute terms.

And today, in a two-sentence correction at the bottom of page two, the Mail admits:

A front-page article on 27 May said that Britain spends more on aid as a percentage of national income than any other country in the world. In fact it spends more than any other G8 country as a percentage of GDP and is second in the world behind the US in cash terms.

Despite the Mail's headline and article being shown to be untrue by Full Fact on the day it was published, it has taken the paper five months to admit it got it wrong.

UPDATE: The Mail's correction was the result of a complaint from Full Fact. Their description of the process makes for very interesting reading, particularly the attempt by the Mail to unilaterally publish a correction two days before the PCC was to adjudicate. Despite the PCC saying the original article was 'sloppy' and contained a 'significant inaccuracy' they did not agree with Full Fact that a front page correction was necessary.

Mail apologises to Carole Caplin

On 18 September 2010, the Mail's front page looked like this:

'Will Carole Caplin lift the lid on Blairs' marriage?' it asked. The article ran on page 13, under the headline ‘Carole’s £1m question: Will she tell all about Blairs’ sex secrets?’

The article began:

She once turned down the offer of £1million for the story of her ten years as lifestyle guru to Tony and Cherie Blair.

But Carole Caplin might now be forced to think again following the failure of a gym she set up to offer massages and health consultations to the wealthy...

The Blairs have always been worried that the former exotic dancer might 'push the nuclear button' and write a book about her extraordinary association with them.

Caplin launched a libel action against the Daily Mail's publishers, Associated Newspapers in which she argued that the article could be read to mean:

there are strong grounds to suspect that the Claimant will now disclose their sex secrets for substantial financial reward

The Press Gazette reported:

According to the writ, no proper effort was made to put the claims to her before publication. It alleges that although the paper contacted her representative, there were no questions about financial difficulties, a book, the Blairs, or sex secrets, and the conversation was solely about her gym...

The writ says that the Daily Mail has refused to apologise or retract the claims, and that the website story remains online.

At a hearing in June, where Associated tried to have the case struck out, their lawyer accepted:

that some of the headlines and captions and the first third of the article in particular could foster a suspicion in isolation that the Claimant might be planning to disclose things about the Blairs that she knew from her friendship with them. But she submits the court should not adopt a "broad brush" approach or focus simply on the headlines. She accepted during the course of argument that none of the various rhetorical questions which are posed are ever answered in the negative, but says neither they nor the hypothetical scenarios which are addressed in the article are ever answered in a positive way either...

David Price QC, for Caplin, argued:

the article poses the same question in a variety of forms: "Will Carole Caplin lift the lid on Blairs' marriage?", "Carole's £1million question: Will she tell all about Blairs' sex secrets?", "Is Carole Caplin set to blow the lid on Tony and Cherie Blair's sex secrets?". The question he says is only worth asking if there are solid grounds to suspect that the Claimant will disclose the information. In the light of the presentation and content of the article (and putting it at its lowest) a jury could, without perversity, understand the article to suggest that there are strong grounds to suspect that she will do so.

The Hon. Mrs Justice Sharp ruled:

I have concluded that read as a whole, and applying the relevant principles to the issue as it arises now, the article is capable of conveying the suspicion that the Claimant will "lift the lid on the Blairs' marriage" and their "sex secrets" for substantial financial reward. 

Today, the Mail has published the following apology:

An article about Carole Caplin on 18 September 2010 ‘Carole’s £1m question: Will she tell all about Blairs’ sex secrets?’ suggested that Ms Caplin might reveal intimate details about Tony and Cherie Blair in a book for a substantial sum, which might lift the lid on their marriage and finish the Blairs. We accept that Ms Caplin would not disclose such matters and that there was nothing improper about massages she gave Mr Blair. We apologise to Ms Caplin.

'Just put up with it'

The Mail's Steve Doughty - who repeated the 'BBC drops BC/AD' myth a week after it had been denied and debunked - has turned his attention to the issue of racism in football.

In the last week or so, two footballers - Patrice Evra and Anton Ferdinand - have claimed they were racially abused by opposition players. In both cases, the accused have denied the accusation.

Here's Doughty's advice:

Things may not be perfect but, at the end of the day, Gary, there are worse things to complain about.

So, Mr Evra and Mr Ferdinand, I know you feel insulted. But perhaps in this case you could just put up with it and get on with the game.

He adds:

Every club seems to be promoting a kick racism out of football campaign, beyond the point of boredom.

And that campaign has responded to Doughty:

Show Racism the Red Card is appalled by Steve Doughty’s article...

It is ludicrous to suggest that players should simply “put up with” racist abuse.

Racism should never be tolerated – unless we want to return to the days where widespread racist abuse was a weekly feature of football, ‘putting up and shutting up’ is not an option. We cannot achieve equality by ignoring racism, equality is something that we must continually strive towards. This is something that football clubs clearly recognise through their ongoing support of anti-racism initiatives, such as the work of Show Racism the Red Card. The steps that have been taken to remove racism from the game are numerous and include: improved legislation, education, fans’ campaigns and bans for racist supporters; these combined actions have all had a positive impact on reducing levels of racism within stadia.

Doughty argues that football clubs are “promoting a kick racism out of football campaign, beyond the point of boredom.” It is revealing that Doughty sees anti-racism campaigns as tedious, as if he believes racism to be a thing of the past, a topic we no longer need to address.

(Hat-tip to Brett)

Mail 'sets the record straight' on another Littlejohn column

On 5 August, Richard Littlejohn wrote:

From time to time I may have written about both asylum seekers and wheelie bins. But never before in the same sentence. Until now.

Six illegal immigrants have been detained by a border patrol in Calais. The four men and two women, all from Vietnam, were discovered hiding in a consignment of wheelie bins bound for Britain. They were detected stowed away in the back of a Polish-registered lorry by a vigilant sniffer dog called Jake.

Asylum seekers hiding in wheelie bins in a Polish lorry. What a perfect metaphor for modern Britain.

On 16 August he returned to the same story:

Another snapshot of modern, multicultural Britain, coming hard on the heels of the story about those Vietnamese asylum seekers caught hiding in wheelie bins in a Polish lorry.

There was no evidence these six people were asylum seekers, having been caught in France before they reached the UK. The UKBA news report certainly never called them asylum seekers but 'would-be illegal immigrants'. 

But Littlejohn called them 'illegal immigrants' and 'asylum seekers' interchangeably. The PCC's guidance on refugees and asylum seekers states that journalists should be:

mindful of the problems that can occur and take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology.

A complaint was made to the PCC asking that they look into Littlejohn's use of these terms. It was sent on the evening of 15 August, after Littlejohn's second article had been posted online.

By 19 September the complainant had received no reply from the PCC or the Mail. So he contacted the PCC again, asking what was happening.

On 23 September - nearly six weeks after the original complaint was made - the Mail finally responded with a letter from Managing Editor Alex Bannister.

The Mail had acted to correct the error, replacing 'asylum seekers' with 'illegal immigrants' in each article, and marking the archive with a note. Bannister said he had reminded 'Littlejohn and our other reporters' of the need to avoid such 'confusion'. He also apologised for the delay in replying, but gave no explanation for it.

The complainant said he would like some explanation for it and also asked for the Mail to admit in print it had corrected the articles.

Bannister's reply came through on 7 October. He said he had been away on annual leave and then had much to catch up on his return but admitted this was 'no excuse'. He also offered to print a clarification.

The complainant accepted the wording of the clarification that was offered and said he looked forward to seeing it in the Mail's new corrections column soon.

On 18 October, around 6pm, the Mail sent a revised wording to the PCC which was sent on to the complainant.

Before he could reply, he received another email at 7:46pm, in which the Mail explained it was hoping to run the clarification on Wednesday and they had changed the wording again.

Fifteen minutes later, another email from the Mail and yet another amendment to the wording.

The complainant agreed to this and so on Wednesday 19 October, the Mail published this:

Commentary articles on 5 and 16 August referred to six individuals apprehended in France who were attempting to enter Britain in wheelie bins on a lorry as asylum seekers when they should have been described as illegal immigrants.

We are happy to set the record straight.

By this time, the Daily Mail's 'Clarifications and corrections' column had been running for three days and this was the second clarification for something Richard Littlejohn had written.

It is also the second time this blog has covered a complaint about a Littlejohn column that has been met with a month-long silence from the Mail.

Oh deer

Daily Mail, Monday 17 October:

The tiny deer that causes 42,000 crashes every year

They are just two foot long and as cute as Bambi but soaring numbers of muntjac deer are causing at least 42,000 road accidents a year, a study has found.

Daily Mail, Tuesday 18 October:

The doe-eyed destroyer: They may look cute but these tiny deer last year caused 42,000 road accidents, destroyed countless gardens - and they're breeding faster than ever

Daily Mail, Thursday 20 October:

An article on Monday claimed that muntjac deer cause 42,000 road accidents a year. In fact, this is the number of accidents caused by all deer and not just the muntjac.

Express misleads on EU poll results

The front page of Saturday's Daily Express claims:

'75% say: 'Quit the EU now''. That's the way the Express has summarised a poll conducted by YouGov.

But the article by Alison Little makes clear this isn't what the poll really shows. Indeed, her first sentence says:

An overwhelming 75 per cent of Britons would vote in a referendum to quit the EU or renegotiate the terms.

The 'or renegotiate the terms' bit is important because, as the Express reveals five paragraphs from the end, if a referendum included three options about the UK's relationship with Europe:

15 per cent would vote for the status quo, 28 per cent would vote to leave the EU and 47 per cent would vote to renegotiate membership terms. 

So the '75%' saying 'quit now' actually includes 47% who don't actually want to quit if renegotiation is an option.  

The poll was conducted by YouGov for the campaign group Vote UK out of EU and their press release on these results makes clear that:

75% of those surveyed would vote to change the current relationship between the UK and the EU.

'Change the current relationship'. Not 'quit now'.

What if the referendum gave a more straightforward 'in or out' choice? The Express states:

Given a choice to stay in or get out – without the option to renegotiate – 52 per cent would quit, 31 per cent would stay in, while the rest are “don’t knows”.

According to this poll, if it's in or out, 52% say quit. If it's in, out or renegotiate, 28% say quit.

So why has the Express claimed '75% say quit now' in the headline?

Two 'substantial' payouts in two days for the Mail

On 19 September, the Daily Mail published the following apology to Osmond Kilkenny:

On March 27, 2010, in an article headlined ‘Family at war over Subo’s millions’, we reported concerns of Susan Boyle’s family about her then manager Mr Kilkenny. We did not intend to suggest that he was likely to manage Miss Boyle’s finances dishonestly and accept this is untrue. We apologise to Mr Kilkenny for this suggestion.

Today, the MediaGuardian reports that the Mail has now agreed to pay 'substantial' damages to Mr Kilkenny:

The article, which was later removed from the Daily Mail's website, was headlined "Family at war over SuBo's millions". It suggested that because of doubts over his trustworthiness Kilkenny was unsuitable or unfit to handle Boyle's affairs.

The Daily Mail has now accepted this was untrue and apologised to Kilkenny. Associated Newspapers has agreed to pay him substantial damages plus legal costs.

Nicholas Armstrong, of the solicitor's firm Charles Russell LLP, acting for Kilkenny, told the high court in London on Wednesday the allegations were "an unwarranted slur on his character and professional reputation".

This follows the news yesterday that the Mail was paying 'substantial' damages to Lady Kristina Moore. 

Daily Mail to pay 'substantial' damages to Lady Kristina Moore

In March, the Press Gazette reported that Lady Kristina Moore, wife of Sir Roger Moore, was 'demanding damages' from the Daily Mail over a diary item by Ephraim Hardcastle on 8 October 2010:

"Playboy Taki Theodoracopulos, 74, says a great love of his life was Kiki, a gorgeous Swede with whom he lived at the Hotel du Cap in 1958. Their affair ended when he found she had been given 'a fortune in French francs' by a 'disgusting' 90-year-old Frenchman.

"His story [in The Spectator] is bound to send the famously-mobile eyebrows of The Saint and James Bond actor Sir Roger Moore into overdrive.

"A 'stunning' Swedish beauty called Kiki - 'even Gianni Agnelli gave her a whirl' - who went on to marry a rich man?

"Surely Taki isn't referring to Sir Roger's fourth wife, the former Kristina Tholstrup, pictured? Lady Moore, 71, is known as Kiki, did knock around the French Riviera in her youth and did end up 'very well off' (after marrying three rich men, including Sir Roger)."

And so:

Lady Kristina Moore, who is known as Kiki, claims the story suggested she had an affair with Taki Theodoracopulos in the 1950s then left him because a wealthy 90-year-old Frenchman offered a fortune to sleep with her.

According to a writ filed at the High Court, the story also claimed Lady Moore behaved in a “meretricious and promiscuous manner” by “knocking” around the French Riviera chasing wealthy men.

It continues:

She is seeking aggravated damages, citing the highly offensive and damaging nature of the allegations and stating that no effort was made to check the story with her first.

If the paper had checked with her, or with Theodoracopulos, it would have discovered the claims were completely untrue, the writ claims, as the woman referred to as Kiki in the story was someone completely different...

In addition, the writ says, the paper has published a statement from Theodoracopulos confirming the allegations were false and that he was referring to a different Kiki.

And according to the writ, the response of the Mail was:

the paper has refused to accept the story was defamatory of her, or to admit liability, let alone apologise for the distressed caused to her.

Today, the Daily Mail agreed to pay Lady Moore 'substantial' damages:

"The allegations published by the newspaper on 8 October 2010 are completely untrue and seriously defamatory of Lady Moore," Catherine Rhind, of Harbottle & Lewis, said in a statement in open court.

"The true position is that Lady Moore was 18 in 1958 and was living in Sweden with her mother and father and at that time had never visited France," Rhind added.

"She could not therefore have been the person to whom Taki was referring as has indeed since been confirmed by Taki who has acknowledged that he was in fact writing about somebody entirely different."

Rhind said that the Daily Mail had not checked the accuracy of the story with Moore before publication, "despite the serious nature of what was claimed". After Theodoracopulos made clear that he was not referring to Moore, the paper published another Ephraim Hardcastle diary item admitting it had been wrong to make the suggestion.

This admission came four days after the original was printed. They admitted they were wrong to make the suggestion, but apparently did not apologise for doing so.

Therefore:

Associated Newspapers had agreed to pay Moore an undisclosed substantial sum in damages plus costs, and also agreed not to repeat the allegations.

A lawyer acting for Associated Newspapers told the high court: "The defendant acknowledges that the allegations made against Lady Moore are untrue and is happy to give the undertakings referred to. As the claimant's solicitor has confirmed, the Daily Mail corrected the matter in the Ephraim Hardcastle column at the first available opportunity. The defendant apologises for the distress and embarrassment caused to both Lady Moore and Sir Roger Moore."

UPDATE: The Mail has apologised in Wednesday's 'Clarifications and corrections' column:

The Daily Mail apologised in court yesterday for wrongly identifying, in a one-paragraph item in the Ephraim Hardcastle column, Lady Moore, the wife of Sir Roger Moore, as the subject of a Spectator column by Taki about a Swedish beauty who had courted rich men on the French Riviera in the 1950s.

We accepted that Lady Moore was not the person to whom Taki was referring and have agreed to pay damages and costs.

Why the need to say it was only a 'one-paragraph item'?

After three months, Mail corrects '£32 loaf of bread' story

In today's 'Clarifications and corrections' column, the Mail finally admits that the claims it (and others) published in July about the NHS spending £32 per loaf of gluten-free bread were not true.

The Mail says:

An article on 19 July reported, in common with other newspapers, that the NHS paid £32.27 per loaf of gluten-free bread for patients with coeliac disease.

In fact, this was the price for an average prescription of several loaves; the price per loaf was around £2.82.

The original stories were shown to be rubbish within a day of publication. The Sun corrected it a month ago. So why has it taken the Mail three months (in total) to put it right? And after all that time, why haven't they apologised for getting it so badly wrong?

The Mail's first corrections column

The Daily Mail has followed in the footsteps of its Sunday sister paper and published its first 'Clarifications and corrections' column on page two of today's paper.

It begins:

The average issue of the Daily Mail contains around 80,000 words - the equivalent of a paperback book - most of which are written on the day under tremendous pressure of deadlines.


Huge efforts are made to ensure our journalism meets the highest possible standards of accuracy but it is inevitable that mistakes do occur.


This new column provides an opportunity to correct those errors quickly and prominently. 

The first clarification is aimed at Michael Levy:

On 26 September we reported that barrister Michael Levy had been arrested on suspicion of “carousel” fraud.  Whilst HM Revenue & Customs confirmed the information to us at the time, we now understand that Mr Levy was arrested on suspicion of irregularities in his personal tax position, which he denies.

This appears on the Mail's website. But the other three clarifications do not. The next is:

An article on 9 September reported a World Economic Forum survey which ranked UK schools 43rd in the world for maths. We are happy to clarify that the survey was based on the opinions of business leaders about teaching in their own countries.

There's no sign of this on the original article or anywhere else.

Then:

An article on 27 September, 'Tesco wins opening skirmish as price war catches out rivals', quoted the price of a Sainsbury's shopping basket at £26.26 against the Tesco equivalent of £19.04. While the Sainsbury's basket remained more expensive than the other supermarkets surveyed, the correct figure should have been £23.51.

There's no sign of this online either, but the original article has disappeared from the Mail's website.

Finally, and perhaps inevitably, they correct something Richard Littlejohn wrote:

A reference in Richard Littlejohn's column reported the allegation that Dacorum Borough Council in Hertfordshire had ignored six letters and as many phone calls from a resident requesting additional assistance in caring for her incapacitated mother before finally making a hone visit and refusing her request. In fact the complaint concerned Hertfordshire County Council. 

There's no sign of this online, but the original column as been corrected, although with no note admitting this.

So the Mail on Sunday's clarifications were all published on MailOnline, although the original articles were not corrected and didn't have the clarifications added. Today, the Mail has published only one of the four clarifications online.

Hopefully, in future, all clarifications will appear on the website and there will be some note on the original article (if it still exists) about those corrections.

(Hat-tip to The Grim Reaper blog)

Churnalism to sell curry

According to reports in several papers, Rochelle Peachey has just been crowned 'Britain's curry queen' after eating curry 'for her last 29,565 meals'.

The Daily Star said:

Red-hot Rochelle Peachey has eaten curry for her last 29,565 meals.

The Mail said:

The mother of one, 49, from Gants Hill, Essex, has just been crowned the country's curry queen - after eating the spicy food for her last 29,565 meals.

It was National Curry Week last week and so some curry-related churnalism was to be expected. And here it was, produced by a well-known brand of curry sauce. Oh, and Peachey just happens to run a dating website which gets mentioned in most of the articles too.She's also written books about dating in which she appears to reveal that she eats a lot of seafood salad.

But 29,565 currys to the exclusion of everything else? Really?

Well, according to Peachey's comments in the Mail:

'I eat three curries a week and if I've got left overs I'll eat it for breakfast the next day.'

How can having it for 'her last 29,565 meals' equate to 'three a week'?

Indeed, if she was eating three curries a week, it would take 189 years to reach 29,565.

The Metro's version of the story claims instead that it is actually 29,565 'spicy meals' rather than just curry. But that wouldn't be so good for National Curry Week, would it?

When asked to confirm if she really had eaten that many currys, Peachey replied:

Indians?

But she had been linking to the Mail and Star stories on Twitter. Asked then if anything in the story was accurate, or just a PR stunt, she replied:

It's not the most convincing response ever, is it?

And a comment on the Mail's article from a person named Rochelle states: