Multicultural backlash

Via Pickled Politics, there's this from the Guardian - 'Kin Outrage'.

Although I have to confess to not having read 'The New East End', I have read other books and articles about multiculturalism that talk about the white working-class community's reaction to it that come to similar conclusions to this:

"As recent migrants to Bethnal Green have tended to be more needy, their needs have taken priority. We argue the indigenous working class understand this all too easily, and this feeds their hostility towards migrants. They see their welfare state as having been adapted to suit migrants and morally undermined in the process," argues The New East End. It concludes that: "the state's reception of newcomers has ridden over the existing local community's assumptions about their ownership of public resources, and this has precipitated a loss of confidence in the fairness of social democracy."

And one flaw in those that I have read (like 'White Backlash and the Politics of Multiculturalism' by Roger Hewitt) is that they don't examine closely enough whether those feelings are justified and based on a realistic view of what is actually happening.

Yes, the shift towards allocating local services on the basis of who needs things the most would have an effect, and it does lead to people coming to the misleading conclusion that services are allocated purely on the basis of immigration status, skin colour or sexual orientation. But some anti-mutlticulturalist and even racist feeling is based on nothing more than strange urban legends. I haven't seen these mentioned anywhere.

This is only anecdotal from me, but I do hear an astonishing amount of rubbish from family members and people I grew up with. There are familiar stories like the ones about bans on displaying the St George Cross (that I've heard while sitting in a pub that has one in the window, in a street with flags draped from pretty much every other house and every other car that drives past has one flapping from the front window, while I'm wearing a t-shirt with one on, sitting underneath yards of bunting with them on), but there are ones that have taken me by surprise. Here are a couple.

I've heard that we have affirmative action laws in this country that are even more radical than American laws. These, so I've been told, are so radical that a company must, by law, employ a black candidate for a job over a white one even if the black candidate isn't as well qualified. No amount of pointing out that this would be illegal, and if it were true the CEO of every company in the country would be black could convince the person I was talking to that he was wrong.

I've been asked, 'What about that asylum seeker that came over and told the council he lived in a mansion with a swimming pool in his country because the council have to give them the same as what they had at home, so he got his house and swimming pool and when they investigated, they found out he lived in a shack in his own country?' Where do you start with a story like that? Where does anyone come up with the idea that asylum seekers are given the equivalent of what they had at home, even down to mansions with swimming pools?

You only have my word for it that I've heard these things, but I swear I have. In the midst of quite heated discussions.

So, when I hear quotes like this:

"My report in 1994 showed how the council didn't apply need and repeatedly discriminated against Bangladeshis in favour of whites. The reality is the opposite of what they claimed," said Adams, adding that repeated investigations in the 80s and early 90s uncovered evidence of systematic discrimination in housing policy against Bangladeshis.

I have to say, I'm not entirely surprised. Nor am I surprised by this:

Kate Gavron, one of the authors, insists it simply records the views of the white population. But others feel these views are not borne out by the evidence.

The tabloids fit in here by perpetuating these ideas, even if they don't specifically report some of the stories you might be likely to hear.

Here's what I think is probably happening. It's speculative rather than scientific, but this is a blog post, not a doctoral thesis.

The tabloids are complicit in the creation of the idea that there is some sort of shadowy 'PC Brigade' that have made it impossible to speak your mind, and have gone as far as banning things from being mentioned even if they're true. I covered an example of this in 'The answer is, none more black'. Also, and this was something I'd been meaning to write a whole separate post on, they deliberately give the impression that the people they quote refuting their PC Gone Mad claims are liars (see 'They go together like Batman and Robin', 'It's Political Correctness Gone Mad Gone Mad' and 'What's this? Some truth in an Express headline?'), creating the impression of a shadowy conspiracy that sneakily ban things for PC reasons while pretending that there's another explanation.

At the same time, the tabloids produce misleading articles about Political Correctness Gone Mad, Muslims or immigration that either exaggerate the truth beyond all recognition or are completely untrue in the first place. So, a reader who picks up one of the papers will probably already think the paper is having to hold back from reporting what's really going on because of the PC Conspiracy. This does three things:

• Convinces the reader that the stories they read must be true or they'd have been nixed by the PC Brigade.

• Convinces the reader that any explanation that points out that whatever has happened (if anything) has nothing to do with PC is a lie.

• Gives the impression that what's really going on is much, much worse than the paper would ever be allowed to report.

So, it should come as no surprise that someone will believe that an asylum seeker has lied to get a mansion with a swimming pool without questioning whether it's likely that that rule exists at all. It also explains another thing I've witnessed: how someone can dismiss an explanation that changing the words to nursery rhymes like 'Baa baa black sheep' can be an excellent way to help children develop linguistic skills and understand language even when the person explaining that to them is a speech and language therapist.

Of course, it's not entirely the fault of the press, but they certainly play a role in perpetuating weird ideas about race and PC Gone Mad that fuel these more extreme versions of it that go on to fuel racism.

And to be fair to the tabloids, they may be falling for the same sort of urban legend as some of their readers rather than just making things up. But here's the thing. It should be job of the press to find out whether or not these things are true before they report them, not to unquestioningly regurgitate everything they think their readers might want to hear. The trouble is that Paul Dacre at the very least disagrees, as I pointed out in 'Dacre's rant'. He boasts that the tabloids are 'the very embodiment of the views of the great majority of the British people.' But that shouldn't be the job of the press. The job of the press should be to tell the British people what is really happening in the world. Not to misreport events to somehow reflect their views even if they're wrong.

So the two things here feed on and perpetuate each other. Often, people will have a completely misguided view of what's going on in their local community and believe ethnic minorities are getting all sorts of benefits that they aren't. Newspapers will pick up on these ideas and report them either without checking to find out if they're true in the first place, or checking and then implying that the explanation they're given is a lie. This leads to people thinking ever more ridiculous things are happening, which leads the papers to report them and so on and so on. Now we have a situation where any change of anything for any reason can be blamed on Political Correctness, and nobody will bat an eyelid.

That's not to say that there never have been any odd misguided local policies, or that everything white working-class people believe about multicultural policy is wrong. I'm just pointing out that a large chunk of what they (we?) do believe is weird and exaggerated, and that their views may well be different if they knew the truth.

In the midst of all this, a study is produced that reproduces these misguided views about how policy has led to disaffection among the white working class without ever checking whether the disaffection is justified by the reality of what's going on, which only goes to reinforce the ideas both among the white working class and the tabloids, so it's possible to say that multicultural policy has led to disaffection and racism and a shift toward the BNP, when in fact that isn't entirely true. A weird, exaggerated caricature of multicultural policy has played a very important part.

And who's reponsible for that?

They go together like Batman and Robin

The Daily Mail and misleading stories about immigration, that is. Today, we have another. It's quite a good one, and it's an expert use of the 'Withdrawn!' tactic. 'Migrant numbers triple from new EU countries' is the headline. Der Sturmer has its own version, which is a bit less clear and includes a predictable quote from MigrationWatch, but I'll be looking at the Mail because I'm sick of Der Sturmer at the moment.

The Mail says:

The number of migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania in the UK has tripled since they joined the European Union.

Okay, gotcha. Number of migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania have tripled. Where does this figure come from? Apparently:

Figures today show 60,000 citizens from the two Eastern European countries arrived in Britain in the three months to February, compared with 23,000 for the same period in 2005/06.

Right. Cool. Figures from the ONS, presumably, since they get a bit of a mention later in the article. So let's have a look at the figures released on 25 April about workers from the 2 new EU countries. Maybe there's a new Accession Monitoring Report or something. That's what I thought, until I found out that there aren't any figures about migrant workers that were released on 25 April. Instead, we're talking about the 'Overseas Travel and Tourism First Release' which isn't even in the 'Migration' secion, but 'Transport, Travel and Tourism'.

What the paper is done is take the number of visitors from EU25 countries (pre-January EU countries) and subtract it from the number from EU27 countries (post-January EU countries) to find out the total from the two new EU countries. So, the number of people visiting has trebled.

Just think about that for a second. The Mail (and Der Sturmer) both think it's okay to refer to tourists as 'migrants'. Now you know why they've been favouring 'migrant' over 'immigrant' in a confusing manner recently. All the better to mislead you with, my dear.

And let's get this straight. We shouldn't be surprised that the number of people from these countries coming here to visit or work rises after we relax the regulations allowing them to do so. It wouldn't be news even if it had risen.

But anyway, see that bit where the paper said, 'The number of migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania in the UK has tripled since they joined the European Union'? You know, the opening sentence that frames the whole article and lets the reader know what it's going to be about? Big, fat fib. The number of people visiting the UK has tripled. Sure, some might be coming to work but we can't know how many, and neither can the paper. So it fibs.

Now, let's have a look at the paper's next claim. The one that goes some way to justifying the figure for the number of workers tripling:

The Office for National Statistics estimates around one in 10 Eastern Europeans, or 2,000 a month, arriving at Britain's ports and airports plan to stay for more than three months to work or study.

Where does this claim come from? Not surprisingly, it comes from a separate document, 'Visits to the UK from the enlarged EU', which says:

During the same period, the comparable figure for visits [of less than three months] by nationals from the A8 countries to the UK was 91%.

Yes, you read that right. A8 countries. The Eastern European countries that don't include Romania and Bulgaria. The countries that don't have restrictions on how many people can work here, so will very likely have a higher proportion of people from them looking for work. That's because this document is from December. Before the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. So, you see that bit where it says 'about 2,000 a month'? The paper pulled that out it's arse.

So, the entire set up of the article is made up nonsense.

Greg Hands MP redeems himself a bit after I called him a twat in 'More bullshit from the Express', but since he contributed to the horrible nonsense in Der Sturmer, he doesn't redeem himself completely. And the inclusion of this quote, which is about scrapping the restrictions on the number of people from the two new EU countries from working, only adds to the false claim from the paper that the figures have anything to do with workers rather than tourists.

It's not until the last couple of sentences that the paper employs the 'Withdrawn!' tactic to destroy all the hard work it put into setting up the big old fibs of the opening sentences (like a kid in primary school saying something and then shouting 'not really!'). And it does so by putting the words into someone else's mouth, which has the effect of making it look as though they're lying:

A Home Office spokesman said: "These figures are not about immigration. The vast majority of people in this survey came as short-term visitors."

In total, 32.3 million people visited the UK in the year to February, up seven per cent on the previous year, while the number of UK residents going abroad rose by 2.5 per cent to 66.8 million.

And it works. You can't take everything seriously in the Mail's comments section because some of them are made by people pratting about, but can all these be spoofs?:

Yet all these so called 'caps' haven't worked have they? Immigrants flooding in from Bulgaria and Romania are not only not working but bringing their families with them. If Turkey is allowed to join the EU then potentially we will have 72,000,000 people eligible to come here. Our island will sink beneath the weight shortly!

- Patricia, Jarrow

Just another bunch of Labour voters arriving. They will probably go home once our economy is in tatters.

- Steve P, Leeds England

Because the Lab party hope they will vote for them.

- Margaret, Suffolk

Seriously, do these people think holidaymakers can vote? Well, probably not. Lickyalips has the scoop:

>>A Home Office spokesman said: "These figures are not about immigration. The vast majority of people in this survey came as short-term visitors." <<

As we have no borders controls, how would he know that?

I wonder how we'll cope when we are standing on each other's shoulders?

- Lickyalips, Richmond Surrey

This is either a brilliant parody of a Mail reader or a twat of the highest order.

It didn't work with Steve from London though. But that's because I know him. Don't let this sort of thing work on you, eh?

Should the guilty go free *UPDATE*

If you haven't read my last post, read that one first. Go on.

Now, the Daily Express used to not bother including their editorials on their website, but they do now. Via Islamophobia Watch, we can also see the headline above.

Of course, the front page is another illustration of painting Muslims as 'not us'. Presumably, this means that Muslims' taxes pay for special Muslim courts that 'we' have to go to sometimes, which is why these courts are ours. Except it doesn't.

It's also an illustration of another common tabloid cheat. The infuritaing use of the word 'now'. It's not just like a pub drunk saying it as if everything else weren't bad enough, like, 'they used to just give away council houses to black people. Now they've only gone and started givin' 'em gold plated BMWs as well!' although it is like that too. And there's something about that word 'now' that sends a clear signal that what follows it is utter, utter shite.

The other thing it does is give the impression that something new is happening. But you know what? It isn't. Not really. The guidance says:

A number of judges have provided helpful accounts as to how they have dealt with such situations themselves, and to which we have had regard in formulating the following guidance.

See, the whole guidance is based on what the JSB considers good practice based on things that that have taken place in the past. Muslims always could wear veils in 'our' courts. There was never a rule saying they couldn't.

The editorial 'Disgraceful veil rule will fuel further anger' pushes the false impression further, by saying:

In this country we have always believed that justice must be seen to be done and that jurors should be able to see the reaction of defendants and witnesses to allegations that are put to them.

Equally, defendants should be able to gaze upon a jury of their peers summoned to decide upon their guilt or innocence. For the legal establishment to abandon these principles in the face of pressure from a tiny minority of extreme, politically motivated Muslims is a disgrace.

That's just utter nonsense. There is no principle that is being abandoned. Muslim women could always wear a veil if the judge thought it was appropriate, just as these guidelines reccommend. Remember, the original case that sparked this resulted from a reactionary judge telling a lawyer to remove her veil after she'd been wearing it in tribunals for years without any trouble. It's the Express that is calling for the abandonment of principles.

Nothing has changed. If you're an Express reader - now this might come as a shock to you, if nobody else - your paper isn't exactly telling you the truth.

I'll be referring to the Express as Der Sturmer from now on. Sod Godwin's Law. This is why:

On Monday the Treasury announced it will set up sharia-approved financial products especially for Muslims. Yesterday the legal establishment took the first step towards allowing British Muslims to regulate their interactions with the courts according to sharia law.

The British people will not put up with these crazy acts of cultural surrender for much longer.

A misdirection and exaggeration about a minority group followed by a call to arms that could incredibly easily be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Where have wee seen that sort of thing before?

In answer to the editorial's headline: only if you're successful in making it happen, you bunch of fucking goons.

Should the guilty go free, or should we stop women wearing cloth in front of their face? You decide

Months ago, the tabloids decided to bully lawyer Shabnam Mughal for wearing a niqab in an immigration tribunal. Der Sturmer The Express was especially fascistic, including some particularly hateful bile in an eye-poppingly nazified editorial, and it's the Express that bothers to follow up on the final guidance issued on wearing niqabs in court by the Judicial Studies Board.

The guidance is pretty uncontroversial. It basically says it's up to the judge. If the judge thinks wearing a veil will cause problems, there are measures they can take, and exactly what they do is up to them. This includes asking to remove the veil. As we'd expect from the Express though, it doesn't get reported like that. Its coverage 'Muslims standing trial to hide their faces', the headline of which is a lie to start with, opens with:

MUSLIM women were yesterday given the full backing of the law to wear veils in court – even if they are standing trial for crimes.

Now, this will be a lengthy quote, but I think it's necessary to reproduce the full section on how niqab wearing women appearing as defendants or witnesses from the board's guidance to show exactly how false the Express's claim is. Here goes:

As a witness or defendant. For a witness or defendant, similarly, a sensitive request to remove a veil, with no sense of obligation or pressure, maybe appropriate, but careful thought must be given to such a request. The very fact of appearing in a court or tribunal will be quite traumatic for many, and additional pressure may well have an adverse impact on the quality of evidence given. Any request to remove a veil should be accompanied by an explanation by the judge of their concern that, where there are crucial issues of credit, the woman might be at a disadvantage if the judge or jury is not able to assess her demeanour or facial expressions when responding to questions. The witness or party may wish to discuss the matter with her legal representative or witness support worker.

It is worth emphasising that while it may be more difficult in some cases to assess the evidence of a woman wearing a niqab, the experiences of judges in other cases have shown that it is often possible to do so, depending on all the circumstances - hence the need to give careful thought to whether the veil presents a true obstacle to the judicial task. Can it be said, in the circumstances of the particular case, that the assessment will be different where the judge is able to see the witness’s face? In a criminal case, the position should be explained in the absence of the jury and the possibility considered of offering the use of permitted special measures, for example a TV link.

Where identification is an issue, then it must be dealt with appropriately, and may require the witness to make a choice between giving evidence in the case whilst showing her face, and not being able to be a witness.

Whilst not exact analogies, there are, of course, other circumstances in which a judge will take evidence without being able to see the face of the witness – for example, where evidence is taken on the phone, or where the judge is visually-impaired. [Emphasis (in bold) mine].

Did you see what the paper did there? It took the bits that probably mainly apply to witnesses from a section that talks about witnesses and defendants and pretended they applied just to defendants. What the report is basically saying is that if a defendant refuses to remove the veil, they forfeit their right to defend themselves. The paper also took something that was contingent on the decision of a judge and made it sound as though it was an absolute. But adding the words, 'unless a judge tells them to take it off,' would ruin the whole point of the article.

Back to Der Sturmer:

Senior judges ruled that religious dress – including the full niqab which leaves only the eyes exposed – should be allowed for anyone involved in a court case unless justice is threatened.

Just let that sink in for a minute. Now think about what that means the paper's stance is. That's right - women should not be allowed to wear a niqab in court even when it has no negative effect on the case or the outcome of the trial if they do.

In a nice illustration of yesterday's post "'This is outrageous', said Tarquin FitzTory", we have a quote to beef up the Express's position and false impression from a Tory MP. And wouldn't you just know it, it's from Philip Davies, of yesterday's post fame. Good old Phil. He says:

“People are entitled to see what is going on. All this pussy-footing around, judges have no comprehension of the damage there doing for community cohesion by coming out with this barmy stuff.

“I do not have a problem with someone wearing a veil where there is no issue. But if a judge tells someone to take off their veil, then they should take it off and we should not be kicking everyone else out.”

Here we have some clear proof that either Philip Davies hasn't read the report or hasn't understood it, because, "if a judge tells someone to take off their veil, then they should take it off" as he says, is pretty much a paraphrase of what the report says. You'd think that someone who has been stung giving weight to a lame tabloid story like Philip Davies would be wary of being caught out a second time. But that's only if you're gullible enough to believe he's more interested in giving a considered opinion on actual events than making a cheap political point in a crap newspaper.

There's then some nice obfuscation, with the paper reporting:

If the wearer of a veil is the defendant, the judge must “give careful thought to whether the veil presents a true obstacle to the judicial task”.

It reminds judges that should the veil be an issue when the defendant is giving evidence there are “special measures” available, including TV links or clearing the court of those not directly involved.

I don't see what the problem is with this advice, but that's because I've read the bit before that in the report, that says:

The very fact of appearing in a court or tribunal will be quite traumatic for many, and additional pressure may well have an adverse impact on the quality of evidence given.

You know, the section of the report that points out that forcing a witness or defendant to remove a veil might actually have a negative impact on the trial. It might actually be worse than allowing them to wear the veil or implement other measures. Does this mean that the Express cares more about forcing Muslims to dress how non-Muslims would prefer in court than ensuring a fair trial? Given that the paper doesn't think this sentence is important, I rather think it does.

Phillip Davies is backed up by none other than David Davies, also of yesterday's post fame. Not being shy of hyperbole and red-faced histrionics, he says:

“This is another nail in the coffin for this country.

“We have reached the point where we are bending over backwards to pander and forget the culture and laws that made this country what it is."

Now, Dave. Dave. Part of the culture and laws that make this country what it is is the freedom to practice any religion you like, and to express those beliefs in any way you see fit (as long as it doesn't cause practical problems). The principle of not forcing people to conform because, you know, they might not want to. His next sentence is great:

“The veil is not something that is part of the Muslim culture and is even banned in some Muslim countries.”

If you want to know what is and what isn't part of Muslim culture, don't listen to the arguments form Muslims on both sides, don't allow Muslims to decide for themselves. Have a non-Muslim Tory MP decide for them instead.

Because banning pieces of cloth is what matters. The question of whether or not innocent people get punished or guilty people get set free is piffling nonsense. The Express likes to think of itself as a paper tough on criminals - more concerned with banging up criminals than with their [spit] human rights. But it's prepared to sacrifice that principle to stop some people wearing a bit of cloth in front of their face.

Nice to know it has its priorities straight.*

*I might have employed a bit of tabloid style hyperbole in coming to this conclusion.

'This is outrageous!' said Tarquin FitzTory

Imagine this. It's a warm and bright summer Saturday morning in suburbia. Birds are chirping, lawnmowers are buzzing and Johnny Mailreader skips along the hazy, sun warmed street on the way to the newsagents to buy his Saturday copy of the Daily Mail. He breathes in the smell of cut grass and puts an extra spring in his step. He's got bacon in the fridge and he's looking forward to frying up a nice sandwich to eat slowly at the kitchen table with a crisp copy of the Mail spread out in front of him. All is right with the world.

At the newsagents, everything changes. 'Save our Chipsticks' shouts the Sun's headline. 'Fury as Council bans Chipsticks' yells the Mail. 'Now Muslims bathe in the blood of sacrificed Christian virgins' screams the Express. Johnny snatches up a copy of the Mail and reads the first sentence. It says:

A row erupted in Lewisham last night as the Council banned Chipsticks because they feared they'd offend the Polish.

Rather than read it in the shop, Johnny pays up and rushes home past the annoying buzz and clatter of the lawnmowers and through infuriating wind-blown drifts of cut grass to sit at his table and read the story, his bacon sandwich forgotten.

Reading the story makes his grip on the paper tighten and tighten. Why on earth would the Polish be offended by Chipsticks? There's a Tory MP in the article who asks the same question. And someone from MigrationWatch who talks about how the arrival of more and more immigrants will change our way of life. Everyone in the article agrees with Johnny! Why can't these fools at the Council see? Someone from the Campaign Against Political Correctness calls the decision 'bonkers'. A representative from the Taxpayer's Alliance calls it 'mad'. There's even a quote from the head of a Polish Centre in Lewisham saying, 'I don't know what the Council is talking about. I love Chipsticks, and most of the people at our Centre are fond of the salty snack.' It's madness! Even the Polish don't mind Chipsticks! It's just like Littlejohn talks about in the book he got for Christmas - or should he say, 'Winterval'? This country is being taken over by madmen and gays and foreigners! In a spasm of anger, he pulls the paper in two and sinks to his knees, holding the pieces aloft in his tightly grasped fists, 'Why?' he screams at the sky through his anguished sobs, 'Why, damn you!'

It's just like any other morning in the Johnny Mailreader house.

It shouldn't be, though. If Johnny had read a bit more closely, he might have spotted the hints that cast doubt on the story. If he'd read some other papers as well, he might have found out that Chipsticks had never been banned at all, but that one Council building had stopped selling them (and other things) in their vending machines for just one day as part of a healthy eating initiative, and that it had sweet Fanny Adams to do with the Polish.

Once he found that out, he might have wondered how so many people knew about the Chipstick ban and agreed with him that it was bonkers, which might have led him to discover one of the most commonly used sneaky tabloid tactics. That of calling people up with a made up or exaggerated version of events and asking for a reaction without giving the full story, so the paper can put some meat on the bones of its nonsense by making it look as though lots of people know that what the paper claims is going on is actually true, and agree with the paper that it's outrageous. This tactic works on a few levels, and the people asked for quotes aren't always exactly innocent victims of tabloid skulduggery, but the basic tactic remains the same - although it must be said that the paper doesn't always know the story is rubbish, it likely as not just hasn't bothered to do any checking.

The best recent example of this is a story in the Sun, which told of how evil Muslims tried to hound out some brave squaddies from their prospective new home in Windsor by daubing the house with graffitti and making threatening calls to the squaddies' barracks. After they'd bravely served in Afghanistan and everything. The trouble was, the story was rubbish. It wasn't Muslims at all. The story has since been pulled from the Sun's website, and the paper has issued a half-hearted apology. (*UPDATE* It hasn't actually been removed from the website, I underestimated the power of the tabloid dark side. It's still there, without any hint being given of an apology being made.) Mask of Anarchy covered this in a lot of detail at the time, but especially interesting is how the Sun backed its article up with a quote from Philip Davies MP, who said:

If there’s anybody who should f*** off [the graffiti shown in the article said 'Fuck off' in massive letters] it’s the Muslims who are doing this kind of thing. Police should pull out the stops to track down these vile thugs.

After it was revealed that the story was rubbish and the Sun apologised, Korova contacted Philip Davies and asked for an apology. Now, I don't want to cover the same ground as Korova, but Some of Philip Davies's reply reveals a lot about what I'm banging on about:

Newspapers and television media approach people every day and ask people their reaction to events as they relate to you. Everybody makes their comments in good faith presuming the story is true.

So that's how it goes, at least officially, and it's a very common practice. One of the things we should always be sceptical about when reading a tabloid story (or any story in a newspaper, for that matter) is the impression we're given that what's going on in the story is widely known about because lots of people have commented on it. Remember how easy it was for Chris Morris to dupe eejits in 'Brass Eye'. It's just as easy, if not easier, for a Sun journalist to phone up a Tory MP and say, 'What do you think of Lewisham Council banning Chipsticks then?' and the Tory MP to splutter, 'It's outrageous! It's political correctness gone stark staring bonkers! We've been eating Chipsticks in this country since the reign of Charles I,' and so on, and so on.

Of course, it helps if the paper knows it's going to get a quote that agrees with its stance. In stories about Political Correctness Gone Mad, Tory MPs are a good bet, and some are more reliable than others. David Davis seems to be a favourite, as does the similarly named David Davies, and Philip Davies must be king of them all. That's because he represents the Campaign Against Political Correctness in Parliament. He's the gullible type of right winger who probably still believes that black bin liners were banned in Tower Hamlets so as not to offend black people, and that by law we have to call manhole covers 'non gender specific access entry space units'. He represents a group that falls for all these stories hook, line and sinker.

Other groups might not necessarily be gullible as much as eager to push their own agenda. The Campaign Against political Correctness and the Taxpayers' Alliance might fall into this category, and MigrationWatch definitely do. Groups like this would be more than eager to give a nice juicy quote without caring one way or the other whether the story is actually true. What's important to an anti immigration group like MigrationWatch is to dissemminate the message that immigration is a Bad, Bad Thing. Whether or not Chipsticks had actually been banned would almost be an irrelevance.

Sometimes, these groups even set up the stories that the tabloids lead with and the whole thing works in the opposite direction, with the paper becoming the willing dupe. Look at the coverage MigrationWatch got of its spurious claims that immigrants contribute the 4p a week to GDP per head. Or the fantastic coverage that employment law firm Peninsula got over the Christmas period by providing the tabloids with a completely rubbish study that was supposed to show how loads and loads of firms were banning Christmas but actually looked more like an attempt to tout for business by giving firms the impression that they needed legal advice on what to do about Christmas decorations. Nobody bothered to check their working before publishing the claims in both cases, because they sat well with what the papers believed - or at least wanted their readers to believe - in the first place.

Some of the people quoted may well have been fooled. The Polish Centre manager in our Chipstick story would be unlikely to suspect that the paper is giving a less than truthful account, and who could blame them? Most people wouldn't suspect. And even if they did, they'd probably be more concerned with letting people know that any ban has nothing to do with them or the people they represent. Keith Vaz falls into this category a lot. He often appears in stories saying Muslims don't mind Christmas decorations or pictures of pigs or something. It's easier for him to do that while he's on the phone to the paper than it would be to investigate the story to find out if it's true in the first place.

Even if these people did question the story and show some scepticism, the papers may well just misquote them anyway. Our Polish Centre manager might well have actually said, 'I don't believe for a second that the Council has banned Chipsticks and this is probably just another attempt to smear the Polish. If it has, I don't know what it's on about,' and so on. The Sun did this spectacularly last Christmas, when it edited Tony Blair's sceptical comments about the banning of Christmas to make it look as though he agreed with the paper (covered brilliantly by Obsolete). It even devoted a separate story to its spectacular misquote.

Still, be careful of assigning blame to someone for making the whole thing up in the first place. It's not as if there's always an evil, cacking baddie behind these stories saying, 'Excellent! I have made the ridiculous sheep believe in the Polish ban of Chipsticks. MWUH-HUH-HUH-HA-HAH-HAH-HAAAAAH!' There is sometimes, obviously - but often, what happens is that a group of organisations and people who all believe in something look to each other for proof that what they believe is true, without really knowing that they're all as clueless as each other. Sure, sometimes they don't care, but its only human nature to look for agreement when you're sure you know the truth. It's called confirmation bias.

The bottom line is this. Never assume that any quotes in a tabloid story actually add any weight to the paper's claims. They could be gullibly given reactions to a made up or distorted story. They could be a reaction to something that the person or organisation quoted knows to be untrue, or at least doesn't care either way. The paper itself might be colluding with another organisation, knowingly or not, in setting up the story in the first place. The quote itself might actually be a deliberate misquote.

Always look for external sources that might include a more complete quote if you're that interested. Even then, take it with a pinch of salt, eh? And if the person quoted is Philip bloody Davies, take it with a whole grit bin full.

Poor old Johnny. There was no need for his anger.

*UPDATE* More on misleading quotes in '"This is outrageous!" says Tarquin FitzTory II'

More crappy updates

My PC is dead. So it goes.

Posting here will be light until I get a new hard drive to replace the one buggered up by viruses.

Crappy updates

Hello people.

Here are some updates of things that have been bubbling along away from the blog, namely correspondence with MigrationWatch and my complaint to the PCC.

Firstly, the PCC. It seems my email explaining why it wasn't good enough that the Commission wanted to drop my complaint worked. I got a letter saying it would be taken forward for consideration to see if it needed properly investigating. This is a bit encouraging, but they had already tried to put me off twice. I have little doubt that I'll eventually get a reply saying there hadn't been a breach with some dodgy justifications that I'll be able to pull apart like taking individual sheets off a toilet roll, but they might actually do something.

Secondly, MigrationWatch. I pointed out that the stats on their site now differed significantly from the ones Professor Coleman claimed in the Telegraph and asked whether this was because MW disagreed with him, or because there are several studies that contradict the MW findings that they don't mention in their briefing paper. I got a reply saying, 'Fuck off Charlie, and stop asking awkward quesitons.' I'm paraphrasing. Actually, I'm not even doing that, I just exaggerated what they said to make a better point, and my name isn't Charlie. What they actually said was:

We suggest that you study the revised report in detail and you will find that your questions have been answered.

No they haven't. You know what that kind of sentence is referred to as? A dodge. Dodging the question usually means that someone, somewhere has gone done fucked up. The revised report only shows one figure for total net migrant contribution to GDP, and it ain't 0.1 percent. In fact, the figure '0.1' does not appear anywhere on the entire paper. Of course, MW can't admit to disagreeing with Professor Coleman in any way so I doubt any proper explanation will ever be forthcoming.

The reply goes on to say:

Meanwhile, if you can refer us to a study that concludes that large scale immigration makes a substantial contribution to GDP per head for the indigenous population we would be interested to take a look at it.

I was going to go into how this is an example of shifting the burden of proof, but it isn't even that. It's misdirection based on a strawman. I have made no claim about large scale immigration making a substantial contribution to GDP per head in my correspondence to MW. (In fact, as anyone who has read my posts on this blog would know - and that doesn't include MW, which is why this bit's in brackets - I don't think it would and neither does anyone else, which is why MW doesn't actually have any quotes of anyone but themselves claiming it should). All I've done is asked why their figures differ from Professor Coleman's. Asking to see a study that says something esle is in the same league as saying 'Look, it's the Goodyear blimp!' and running off.

I don't know if I'll bother with a reply. My complaint to the PCC and writing to MigrationWatch have already taken time away from posting here and taking the mickey out of the right wing tabloids, which was kind of the point of the blog. And I've missed the first ever meme I was ever tagged with and didn't carry it on (sorry to Obsolete - who tagged me as a thogger) which I think is a bit of a blog etiquette no no (big novice at this really, so I dunno).

I've even managed not to comment on the whole sailors selling stories thingy. Luckily for me, my thoughts are pretty much summed up by Polly Toynbee in the Graun (which is something you won't often hear) all except her last paragraph, which is bobbins. I do like this bit though:

The British press, the worst in the west, demoralises the national psyche. It makes people miserable. It raises false fears. It proclaims that nothing works, everything gets worse, and it urges distrust of any public official or politician.

All I would add to that are the words 'and it's rubbish and smells of wee'. That's not some kind of knowing satire of Toynbee's words. I really bellieve it.

It's Political Correctness Gone Mad Gone Mad!

Here's a nice one. 'Hospital that 'banned' hot cross buns to avoid offending non-Christians' in the Mail and 'Hot cross buns banned to avoid offence' in the Express.

The trouble with both headlines is that nothing got banned and the patients still got their hot cross buns. But when has the Mail or the Express ever let the truth get in the way of a good Political Correctness Gone Mad story? The answer is never. The Mail never lets the truth get in the way. Either does the Express. They prefer to use the 'Withdrawn!' tactic. (Plus, it definitely looks as though I was being a bit over-optimistic about the Express after all. Coises. Foiled again).

Here's the dealio. Dunno why I wrote it like that. Just felt like it. Anyway, here's the dealio. Catering staff were shocked to find they didn't have any hot cross buns to hand out on Good Friday. They claim that their manager said it was to do with not offending other faiths. Upon checking, it turns out that it was all just a mistake and the hot cross buns were distributed on Sunday or Monday because they hadn't been ordered in time. Given that this non-story is in the Mail, it's naturally reported as the catering manager relenting and deciding to serve them after all. And the Express bizarrely uses the fact that not having ordered hot cross buns in time for Good Friday would be a mistake as evidence that it couldn't have been a mistake.

Given that the story wasn't reported in the Poole Echo until after the hot cross buns were served, it's difficult to see what the manager was supposed to be relenting over, it looks as though the official explanation of not ordering them in time is most likely.

There is a weird difference between the Mail and the Express's reporting. The Express reorts that the hospital spokesperson said buns were on the wards by Easter Sunday, and the Mail says they were on the wards by Monday. They can't both be bloody right.

One nice thing in the Poole Echo is the repeat of the claim that Tower Hamlets Council banned schools from serving hot cross buns in 2003 so as no to offend other faiths - a story that first appeared in the Telegraph and turned out to be false, which led to the Telegraph and other papers that covered the story having to print a retraction.

Although the Mail has reported this story as true since the retraction, it manages not to this time. The tired old saws of Birmingham City Council renaming Christmas 'Winterval' (it didn't), Luton Council renaming Christmas lights 'Luminos' (it didn't) and the Royal Mail not having Jesusy stamps last year (they do Jesusy stamps every oter year on rotation, apparently) all get an airing instead. That's good. A pretend Political Correctness Gone Mad story wouldn't be the same without references to other spurious nonsense to point to as evidence of the collapse of society.

The depressing thing is that back in 2003, the Telegraph reported the hot cross bun story, got found out and had to retract. In 2007, the Mail and the Express already have the explanation for this one and report the story as hot cross buns being banned anyway. Nobody seems to mind.

A reply from MigrationWatch!

I mentioned in 'Academic hits back - and misses in migration row' that I'd emailed MigrationWatch again with the Treasury's email that pretty much blew their 'The Impact of Immigration on GDP per head' report out of the water, because the figure MW claimed referred to immigrant contribution to GDP actually only referred to Eastern European migrants. I've now actually had a proper response.

MW have posted corrected figures on their website in the confusingly titled 'The Impact of Immigration on GDP per head' (which links to a different version of the study). But, funnily enough, they're not very good, and not very accurate. Here's how.

1. MW shift back to using total rather than net addition to the population. The NIER data they're using may well show that 200,000 migrants arrived in 2004 and 2005, but as we saw in 'MigrationWatch: Redux', that doesn't necessarily mean that 200,000 were added to the population.

2. Many of these people are only here temporarily, so don't actually add anything to the population. MW seem to have forgotten that in the very next section of the report, they quote their own study that claims 50 percent of all registered adults return to Eastern Europe. Whoops.

In all fairness to MW, the National Institute Economic Review may have made these adjustments, although that's doubtful from MW's wording - especially connected to my first point. It's incredibly difficult to check, as I'd have to shell out thirty odd quid for the report to be able to check it. Of course, my usual caveat applies - if anyone knows or can quote the relevant parts of the Review, please say so in the comments and I'll amend the post with signposts to show what I've changed.

They've also shifted from using Government figures to using the figures from the National Institute Economic Review to measure the numbers of A8 migrants - even though the Government ones are freely available and have been corrected since they made a mistake calculating the number of dependants A8 migrants bring with them - on the grounds that the numbers are unreliable. The weirdest thing about this is that the £4bn figure they're starting with is itself unreliable, as the Treasury themselves admitted to me in their email, when they said:

The Treasury has not made any official estimate of the contribution of migration; the £4bn figure is a ballpark estimate of the direct contribution of A8 migration. It is based on an internal estimate of the net inflow of A8 migrants into the country, including temporary migrants, and an estimate of their average earnings from the ONS' Labour Force Survey. The £4bn figure does not include any consideration of the economic gains from increased returns to capital or greater productivity, which are very difficult to measure.

But, of course, that doesn't stop MW from using them. Notice the bit in the middle where the Treasury says the figure is based on an internal estimate of the net inflow of A8 migrants - not the flipping National Institute Economic Review figures.

In other words, MW claim that Government figures for the number of A8 migrants are too unreliable for them to use - but the £4bn figure the Government based on those very numbers is somehow reliable. Oh dear.

Still, this revision totally invalidates the 'Mars bar' figures that appeared in all the papers earlier this year. There's no new press release that says, "You know we said that Government figures proved migrants contribute only a small Mars bar a month? Well, that was wrong."

There's only the one study left in the MW report now that says anything about the total contribution of migrants, and it's the one that misleadingly uses total immigration rather than net. The one that Professor David Coleman would sort of agree with if MW had actually used the correct measure for migration. The one that, if you used the correct measure for migration, would say that migrants don't contribute only a small Mars bar per month per head, but three small Mars bars a week per head - or twelve small Mars bars a month (if you take 16p as indicating a small Mars bar, like MW). A total of 720 million small Mars bars a month, rather than 60 million.

I have emailed MW pointing out that now their report differs significantly from Professor Coleman's figure, and asked if this is because MW disagree with him, or if there are several reports that contradict MW's findings that they haven't mentioned in their report. I didn't point out that the two figures would be exactly the same had they used net rather than total migration. They can work that out for themselves.

Whatever their explanation, either David Coleman (Professor of demographics at Oxford University) was wrong when he said there were several studies that showed net migrant contribution to GDP was 0.1% and there's in fact only one, and he was wrong and that study shows a significantly lower figure than 0.1%, or he was right and there are a bunch of other studies MW have conveniently ignored. Whatever, something somewhere is screwy.

At least MW have shown some willingness to change their findings when faced with new data, so something might happen(although I do suspect that this might have something to do with me sending my email to the Independent. I only got a reply from MW to the second email I sent - after I'd spoken to the Independent). There'll probably be some series of contortions the figures get put through, but I'm not sure if that's because MW are deliberately contorting them, or that they're so convinced that immigration is a Bad Bad Thing that the figures look screwy to them unless they support their conclusion.

In any case, it's quite fun to shoot holes in their findings, and not very difficult. The frustrating thing is that nobody else - even the 'left-wing' press seem inclined to bother.

What's this? Some truth in an Express headline?

And it's a Political Correctness Gone Mad story. Surely shome mishtake?

Well, the headline's not exactly objective, since it says 'Barmy councillors snub the Easter cross', but I'm a little bit intrigued because it doesn't use the famous B word. No, not bollocks. Ban. Everyone knows that a good Political Correctness Gone Mad story must be about barmy nutcases banning things. From barmy councillors banning black bin-liners to barmy Muslims banning swimming during Ramadan. So why no B word here?

Sure, the council haven't banned anything - but that's never stopped any paper from claiming things have been banned in the past. Or that there's been a call to ban something. What gives?

I may be jumping the gun a bit in getting optimistic, which I've done before, but I can't help wondering if the complaints to the PCC about the risible Express story 'Muslims: 'ban' un-Islamic schools' have anything to do with it. Mine certainly mentioned the multiple uses of the B word in the article, even though there's no call to ban anything in the MCB document it's about, and some of the other complaints must have mentioned that.

So maybe, just maybe, the PCC have rapped their knuckles for saying the B word willy-nilly.
That'd be a small victory.

Anyway, it's a pity the PCC didn't rap their knuckles for talking shite. The story itself includes a familiar howler. It says:

COUNCIL bosses were branded “completely barmy” last night after refusing to fund an Easter Cross because it might offend other faiths.

And the arse from the Campaign Against Political Correctness, Phillip Davies, says:

“It is completely barmy. Do we really think Muslims or Jews will be offended by a cross being put up at Easter time in Britain by Christians? I think not.”

No Phillip. 'We' don't. We can see what 'we' really think from doing something you and your mates at the Express rarely seem to do. It's a bit of a radical tactic, but it just might work. No, hear me out on this. We could maybe think about possibly, you know, looking at the words the council actually say. It's a long shot, but those words might just show what they think.

The council says:

Lancashire County Council does not give money to any religion. Many taxpayers are non-religious and think it is an improper use of their money to support a religion.

Ah. That'll be it then. No money to support any religion. Maybe the council did say that it was so as not to offend people of other faiths and the Express decided not to quote it.

Yeah, and maybe monkeys eating ice-creams will fly out of my bottom next time I do a poo.

Maaaaammeeeee, how I luvya, how I luvya

I was going to blog about this story when it came out - 'Tory goes to a fancy-dress party as Mandela...and ends up in racism inquiry', but never got round to it. Luckily, the Mail have followed it up today with 'Don't mind you dressing up as me says Mandela...not keen on the shirt, though', so I have an excuse.

I'd like to start by saying that Councillor Brian Gordon is an idiot. Whether or not you think blacking up is unacceptable, you must have some clue that it's a little bit sensitive and you might get criticised for it. Especially if you're a bloody councillor. The Black & White Minstrels have been off our screens for ages. But does that mean he was being racist by blacking up? Not neccessarily.

Rory Bremner blacks up to impersonate Trevor McDonald, but that's not considered racist. I find it a little bit uncomfortable, but Bremner's an impersonator who changes his appearance to look like the people he's impersonating. He's got the suit, the glasses, the hair. So surely, it should be okay to black up if you're dressing as someone for a fancy dress party? Not necessarily.

I went to a pop star party not so long ago, and thought about going as Flavor Flav. Yeeeeah boyyyyyy. I wasn't going to black up partly because I thought that would be funnier but partly because I would never black up. Like, ever. Because I'm not a bloody idiot. Still, people a lot less PC Gone Mad than me asked if I was going to with something like trepidation. Even though they thought it wouldn't be a problem for them, they knew it might be a little bit sensitive and not something to be done lightly (pardon the pun). In the end I went as Alice Cooper because the costume was easier to get hold of, but if I had gone as Flavor Flav you would have known who I was supposed to be from the dodgy shellsuit, top hat, shades, gold teeth and dirty great clock. I wouldn't have needed blackface.

Have a look at the picture of Brian Gordon as Nelson Mandela. Now do a Google Images search for Nelson Mandela. Find any of him wearing a dashiki shirt? I looked through over thirty pages of images and didn't come across a single one. Come across any of him wearing a tooth/bone/fang necklace? I didn't. Find any of him wearing a colourful African style hat with fur on it? I didn't. Any with a beard? Maybe two black and white ones from the sixties, but none from recent years.

The problem with Brian Gordon's costume is that nothing aside from the blackface actually makes him look like Nelson Mandela. He didn't even shave his beard. That's why he needs the sticker with the words 'NELSON MANDELA' in massive letters on it. In fact, the Lib Dem member who complaind, Stieve de Lance, made this very point, as reported in the Guardian's 'New race row for Tories', when she said:

If he wanted to pay homage to Nelson Mandela why did he wear a stupid hat, wig and kaftan and not the colourful Indonesian shirts Mandela is famous for?

In other words, if he wanted to go to a fancy dress party as Nelson Mandela, why didn't he, you know, dress like Nelson Mandela? Unsurprisingly, the Mail decided to leave this point out of its coverage.

Instead, it focuses solely on the blacking up issue, saying:

Barnet's Tory council leader, Mike Freer, said: "I accept that blacking-up is fraught with difficulties and has all sorts of historical connotations. But this wasn't blacking-up like the Black and White Minstrel shows.

"This is Brian Gordon dressing up as a world leader who happens to be black."

What Mike Freer should have followed that up with is, "by putting on comedy African black bloke stereotype clothes that have nothing to do with what world leader actually dresses like." See, that's why blacking up like the Black and White Minstrel show is fraught with difficulties. The Minstrels were acting and dressing like crude, stereotyped versions of black people. So this is kind of similar.

As Stieve de Lance's comment shows, she had no problem with him actually dressing as Nelson Mandela, but just the manner in which he did it. Sure, the blacking up is part of it, but only part of it.

In the Hendon & Finchley Times, we can see that Mike Freer also said:

Just to categorise Nelson Mandela on the basis of his colour is demeaning to him.

But that's exactly what Brian Gordon has done. He made no effort to actually dress like Nelson Mandela other than by blacking up and wearing odd stereotyped African clothes that Mandela doesn't actually wear. We'll never know if there'd have been a complaint if they guy had blacked up and actually dressed like Mandela, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been quite so harsh a complaint if he had.

Brian Gordon himself says:

For several years on Purim, a traditional time for dressing up, I have taken on the guise of a range of famous personalities, including President Reagan, Boris Yeltsin, Ariel Sharon and Sir Ian Blair.

Now, I bet you eight squillion buckaroos that when he dressed as Ariel Sharon he didn't dress as a Hasidic Jew, because that's not what Ariel Sharon dresses like. What kind of person would you expect might do that at a fancy dress party?

There's a fantastic defence of his behaviour in the Hendon & Finchley Times piece 'Hilarious Councillor Did Not Offend Anyone'. In it, the author says that Brian Gordon was great, and anyway, the author's dad used to perform in blackface in minstrel shows, and, "Yes, we've come a long way since the demise of The Black & White Minstrel Show. Unfortunately, it's been down the wrong road, as a result of 'political incorrectness'!" I'm sure that's a great bloke to be defending the Councillor.

Still, there's another important thing in this piece:

I entertained at the Sydmar Lodge Care Home on Purim, and hosted its fancy dress parade. During my last song, Councillor Gordon came in, promptly took my mike and spontaneously began 'rapping' to my backing music. It was quite hilarious, and (in entertainment terms) brought the house down.

Here's another eight squillion buckaroo bet. I bet that when Brian Gordon dressed as Boris Yeltsin or any of the other leaders, he didn't hilariously begin 'rapping'. Because, you know, black people rap, and Nelson Mandela is black. So he must rap too! God, that's a tape I'd love to see.

Anyway, all of this is apparently moot, since Nelson thinks everything's okay. I'm not sure it is though. For a start, blackface doesn't seem to have the same connotations in South Africa as it does here. Mandela himself endorsed the 1986 'Cape Coon Carnival'.

More importantly, Mr Mandela seems to be reacting to this article. As you can see, this is pretty much skewed in favour of Brian Gordon and also neglects to mention Stieve de Lance's comments about not bothering to dress like him beyond blacking up. Mr Mandela, like most readers of this article and the ones in the Mail, will be under the impression that the only problem anyone had with the costume is that Gordon blacked up. He even commented that it was a poor choice of shirt.

Another important point is that Nelson Mandela felt there was no ill intent from Gordon. But that's kind of the point. The reason a councillor shouldn't act in this way is because it signals they're not especially culturally aware when it comes to the issues in their own area, and might not be competent to deal properly with the different people in that area. I'd be prepared to bet that quite a lot of British black people would have a problem with the costume.

So, was Brian Gordon being racist? A bit. Probably unintentionally, but that's the point. What sort of idiot wouldn't realise that if you're going to dress as a black person, you should actually dress like that person and leave out the comedy voodoo necklace?

Does it matter that Nelson Mandela didn't appear to be bothered? A bit. But not enough to blow the whole thing out of the water. South Africa has a far different culture in connection with race, and probably has to deal with far more shocking things than this. I can imagine why it would seem trivial to a man who spent years of his life in jail for fighting apartheid. Especially as he'd only seen one side of the argument, which included a quote from someone who said that if he had taken offence, he didn't have a modicum of humour. Stieve de Lance might feel a bit silly for calling for the guy's immediate sacking now, but she still had a point - and it was not fully presented to Mr Mandela.

Should Gordon be sacked? I don't know - maybe not. It does expose that the Tories haven't changed though. He has apologised, but it wasn't much of an apology given that it was basically an attack on the people he offended for not having a modicum of humour. He deserves some sort of disciplinary action if the Tories want to show they give a shit about unintentional, institutionalised racism. Wandering around saying, 'Why is ot offensive to go to a fancy dress party as a black person and go far enough to black up but dress like a weird stereotype including comedy voodoo jewellery instead of actually dressing like the person?' doesn't really inspire confidence.

What's this got to do with the Mail's coverage? The important thing is how the paper has leaped to Brian Gordon's defence by leaving out relevant information and ignoring the main point of the objection to his behaviour - namely that he didn't actually bother to dress like Nelson Mandela beyond blacking up and slapping his name on a badge. But the paper's prepared to print a whole new article when something happens that's relevant to the councillor's defence. It just exposes how the paper doesn't just present one-sided arguments, but that it does so by keeping the main opposition to their arguments secret from their readers and offering a strawman in its place.

It also illustrates a technique I'll be writing a full post on - of papers approaching people for their opinions and only giving one side of the story, so it looks as though they've all seen all the relevant information and have all come to the same conclusion.

They haven't, though.

More bullshit from the Express *update II*

In a lovely coincidence, the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced their report that criticised the PCC at around the same time as I got a reply from them about my complaint. The two arriving together beautifully exposes why I agree with the JCHR that "[the PCC's] existing system is not sufficiently robust to protect asylum seekers and other vulnerable minorities from the adverse effects of unfair and inflammatory media stories".

Here's the background. I complained about this story in the Express. Not with the language I used in the posting, obviously, but I set out the most blatant exaggerations from the article one by one, with explanations of how each could be misleading. Like how using the word 'ban' might make people think the MCB called for something to be banned. You know, complicated stuff like that. It came to around eight pages, and I'd left some things out.

I got a reply a few weeks later, saying that the PCC only accept complaints from people not directly affected by an article in exceptional circumstances and requesting confirmation within ten days that I was officially representing the MCB. I replied saying it shouldn't matter that I don't represent the MCB and, "A newspaper has repeatedly and demonstrably misinterpreted the contents of a document, and in doing so has created ammunition for those who wish to demonise a section of the public, if not actually taken part in the demonisation itself. [...] Of course, the Commission might feel that this is not exceptional. That would say plenty about the state of the press in the UK."

I thought that was quite a decent zinger. Wasn't sure if it would make any difference to their deciding not to take my complaint any further, but I thought it had a chance.

I got a reply from the PCC late last week, saying that the MCB had sent an official complaint and:

The MCB is the clear first party in this complaint, as it is responsible for the document to which the article refers.

We will inform you of the outcome of the investigation. I do hope that this is acceptable.

Actually, it's not acceptable. And here's why.

The PCC's defence of its policy in the JCHR report 'The Treatment of Asylum Seekers' shows pretty clearly that they measure how successful they have been by counting the number of complaints they get and how many they uphold. There are two relevant sections in the JCHR report:

[The PCC said] The number of complaints (received by the PCC) does not reveal a huge groundswell of concern about them from people against the national press, given that they can complain about issues to do with accuracy, privacy, intrusion, discrimination about individuals and so on.

and:

The PCC believes that the mechanisms in place work effectively. It provided two examples of upheld complaints concerning asylum seekers (issued in 1999 and 2000) which it says “gave an important signal to the whole of the press” and that “it has not been necessary to issue similar rulings for some time”

And on the PCC's website, it boasts of receiving 3,365 complaints in 2005 and only haviing to adjudicate 30 of them. So, for the PCC, a low number of upheld complaints equals success and proof that their mechanism works. But as their treatment of my case here demonstrates, they achieve the low number of successful complaints by throwing out as many as possible before they're even considered.

I'm pretty sure more people than just the MCB and I complained about this. I'm also pretty sure most would have been put off by the initial request to confirm they were officialy representing the MCB. I almost was. And now, anyone else who didn't take the PCC's original attempts at putting them off will have got another attempt to put them off. So, when this is all over, the PCC and the Express can claim that they only had to uphold one complaint about this article, when they may have received several perfectly good ones. Let's say five people, including the MCB complained about this, and the PCC put us all off except the MCB. That makes it look like the PCC got four frivolous complaints and one good one, when they were probably all good. If the MCB hadn't complained at all, and everyone else who did rolled over the first time we were put off (that first letter came before the MCB had put in their own complaint), the PCC could claim no successful complaints so the article was fine - job done. And that's not to mention the number of people who might have been fobbed off before and thought it wasn't worth complaining in the first place.

There's another reason this is not good enough. I might have mentioned things the MCB haven't, and the other complainants might have mentioned things we both missed. I'm sure the MCB complaint is better than mine, but it might have a different focus and not mention each instance of exaggeration in the same way. It might have chosen to focus more on the discriminatory nature of the article and comments like 'Taliban style'. In any case, two or more complaints are better than one.

The reason the PCC's, "existing system is not sufficiently robust to protect asylum seekers and other vulnerable minorities from the adverse effects of unfair and inflammatory media stories," is because the system eliminates as many complaints as possible without looking at them seriously. What makes things worse is that the Commission then claim that the low number of upheld complaints are a result of the system working, when in fact all it shows is that the PCC duck the majority of complaints it receives.

I'll be replying saying this isn't acceptable, and that I'd like my complaint taken further as well as the MCB's, but I don't reckon it'll do any good. In the worst case scenario, the MCB's complaint won't list each instance of a false claim and will be more general, so the PCC can ignore a lot of the things wrong with the article and return a negative result. Given the rumours about Peter Hill's threats to leave the PCC if complaints about the Express are upheld (scroll down to 'Slow and Shoddy Should be PCC Slogan), a rejection might not be as unlikely as it would seem.

How long before a Joint Committee on Human Rights report condemns press treatment of Muslims though, and who will the papers have moved on to by then?