24% of Polish people want to kill us in our beds! *UPDATED*

Going through the whole process of coming up with the 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration' series has made me heartily sick of the thought of trawling through another shoddy Mail immigration article, but since this one seems to have popped up twice [actually, it's popped up three times. See update at the bottom], I'll have a quick look at it.

The two articles about the identical thing are '1 in 4 Eastern bloc migrants wants to stay here for good' and 'More immigrants "aim to stay in UK"'. Since I can't be arsed to go through them closely, I'll keep this brief.

Both articles are based on figures found in this part of a three part report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The report doesn't pretend to count immigrant numbers, but only gives an overview of how migrants' attitudes change the longer they stay in the UK. Anyway, the paper's main focus seems to be on this (taken from the second article):

It revealed that 18 out of 307 people (6%) planned to live in Britain permanently when they first entered the country 18 months earlier. When asked if they still intended to stay in Britain, 76 people (24%) said they intended to stay permanently.

That it did. But there's another important figure that gets conveniently left out of both Mail articles:

A similar picture emerges if retrospective interviews are included (raising the number of observations to a total of 187). Of all those interviewed six to eight months after EU enlargement, 25 per cent said that they intended to settle, compared to 6 per cent who had thought so at the time of their last entry to the UK (before EU enlargement). As explained above, these data are biased in the sense that they include only migrants who were still in the UK six to eight months after EU enlargement. Nevertheless, the data do make it clear that some migrants change their intentions over time, deciding to plan for settlement rather than for a temporary stay as initially intended.

So, six to eight months later, the percentage is roughly the same - with 25 per cent intending to stay, but the sample has mysteriously shrunk from 307 to 187. What's to blame for this shrinkage? Come on, what do you reckon? Here's what the report says:

It is certainly possible that one important reason why we did not manage to reinterview some migrants was that they had left the UK. Thus we might well have missed a proportion of those among our Wave 1 respondents who cut their stay short, and conversely were more likely to sample those who prolonged their stay.

So, the actual number of people who intended to stay then dropped from 76 to 47. The reson this represents the same percentage is that the overall sample group dropped by 120. One important reason for that is that those people may well have left the country already. That's why the report gives this warning:

The primary purpose of our analysis of the survey data below is to point out that there is often a discrepancy between the time migrants think they will spend in the UK when they arrive and the time they actually spend working and living in the UK in practice. The discrepancy may in theory be either to spend a longer or shorter periodin the UK. [Emphasis mine].

So, the paper has taken a report that makes some nuanced and tentative points and made it fit the paper's stance on immigration. Not really a surprise, but still.

Just for fun - and yes I do find this fun, sue me - let's do a similar calculation that James Slack does in his article (thw '1 in 4 Eastern bloc migrants...' one) where he calculates that the figures mean 160,000 Eastern Europeans intend to stay here. 120 is 39% of 307. So that means up to 39% of migrants leave after 6 - 8 months. 39% of 640,000 is 249,600 - which would leave 390,400. 25% of those say they intend to stay, which stands at 97,600. So we have an upper limit of 97,600 people spread over three years who intend to stay in the UK, because we don't know how many more leave after 6 - 8 months, or how many of those would have intended to stay. We don't have 160,000.

But of course, the stats don't work like that. That's why the report itself warns:

The nature of the data and relatively small sample size make it diffi cult to make robust statements about the impact of EU enlargement [...]

Didn't stop the Mail though, eh?

*UPDATE* There's actually a third version of this article on the site, publlished on the same day as the '1 in 4 Eastern bloc migrants . . .' one, and written by the same journalist. The classic lying headline is 'One third of all Eastern Europeans want to stay in Britain premanently'. Firstly, it's not a third. Secondly, it's not all Eastern Europeans - it's not even all Eastern Europeans who have come to work in the UK. It's almost identical to the '1 in 4 Eastern bloc . . .' one, but is a bit more shrill, inserting phrases like '[the 'vast bulk'] have changed their mind and will spend the rest of their days here.' The rest of their days eh? The rest of the article is pretty standard stuff and follows the format we know and love about Mail scaremongering exaggeration. Wonder which one made the print version?

Yet more crappy updates!

I hope these updates aren't crappy, but I've updated the whole 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration' series. Part III gets special attention because I'd missed one point altogether, as well as assuming a set of figures were government ones (because that's what the article implies). The upshot of it is that the article is even more confusing and inaccurate. But hey!

On other matters - my complaint to the PCC about the dodgy Express article I covered in 'More bullshit from the Express' is now officially dead. Despite my trashing of the two separate PCC attempts to put me off - that I'm not directly affected and that my complaint should be dropped because of an official complaint being made by the MCB - it has been dropped on those very grounds. Who'd have thought it, eh?

Me. Sort of. It seems I was right in 'Complaining to the PCC' when I said:

[...] the PCC are not exactly objective or helpful, and in my opinion, reading their replies shows that they tend to be eager to find ways to dismiss complaints without taking them seriously.

There's probably a separate post in showing what dismissing complaints does for the PCC in general. For now it's enough to show that they'll get rid of as many as possible.

Of course, the PCC might actually end up ruling in favour of the MCB in every complaint. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Here's my prediction (that I made before). Only the most obvious and outrageous inaccuracies in the article will be found to be inaccurate by the PCC. That might only even amount to the claim that modesty rules say that boys should be covered from navel to neck while swimming. Everything else will be deemed unlikely to mislead. The Express will have to print an apology of a couple of lines long. That's it, and that's all.

Course, it would be nice to be wrong and see the paper really slammed for such a bunch of lies. Not gonna happen though.

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

This is the last in a series of posts about exactly how the Mail article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' misleads the paper's readers. The other parts of the series are linked at the bottom of the post.

Okay, so far we have a few quotes, attributed and unattributed (or genuine and made up, if you're being uncharitable) compounding the confusion over whether the article is dealing with Romanian and Bulgarian immigration or immigration from the other Eastern European countries. Leading up into the article's withdrawal, we have some nice misleading statistics to muddy the waters and create the impression of a bunch of workshy scroungers.
Lies, damn lies and statistics

The article leads up to the inevitable withdrawal with some slippery statistical shenannigans. I don't need to quote it here in full, but there are a couple of points that need to be made.

Firstly, as Obsolete points out - the number of Eastern Europeans on benefit for being out of work are incredibly low. A fantastic quote:

As you can see, the numbers claiming benefits for being out of work are still so minuscule as to be almost entirely negligible. The Express and Mail have instead thrown their toys out of the pram about the numbers claiming child benefit and tax credits, which on the surface do look large, leading the papers to claim that this is adding up to around £100m in benefits going to migrants. What neither paper bothers to tell you though is that the accession statistics (PDF) also tell you how many national insurance numbers have been allocated since 2004 for employment purposes, through which they'll be paying tax. These stand at 610,751. That means that over 500,000 migrants are taking nothing out while putting far, far more back in than the others are claiming back. And anyway, why shouldn't those 90,000 migrants that are paying tax just the same as the rest of us are not be allowed to claim the same benefits that we're entitled to?

There. Stats trashed. Job done. It would be nice to see a comparison of taxes paid and benefits received by the eastern European countries, even if the Mail and MigrationWatch would dismiss it if it weren't negative.

Secondly, look at the hyperbolic language here. 'Raking in child benefits'. Just over a tenner a week per child is 'raking it in'. To qualify for £200 a week you'd need nearly 20 kids! And £200 a week is hardly raking it in. And look at the term 'state handouts'. Nice. No mention, of course, that 610,751 National Insurance numbers have been issued. This actually stands at more than the number of applications for work permits that have been allocated. This could be because people exempt from the registration scheme have applied for National Insurance numbers, or that some were allocated before applications were rejected, or that some have been allocated to people whose application is outstanding. All sorts of reasons. Still, even more people than are registered with the Worker's registration scheme are likely to be paying - or to have paid - National Insurance and tax.

The other point to make is that the access to benefits for migrants from Romania and Bulgaria is more restricted than for the other Eastern Eurpoean countries. The two are not equivalent. We know that the paper is trying to imply that they are, but they're really not.

The closing sentence

The closing sentence tails off the article perfectly, and brings its focus back to the accession of the two new countries, nicely downplaying any impression that the reader might have that the two sets of migrants are different, treated a different way with different rules. It's also a perfect example of using the 'Withdrawn!' tactic at the very end of an article to make it look as though the person quoted is either lying or wrong. Here is is in all it's glory:

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: "While it remains too soon to evaluate the full impact of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, the early indications are that our policy of restricting access to the UK's labour market is helping to ensure that only those who have something to offer the UK are allowed to work here."

We already know what the paper thinks of that statement. It has gone to great lengths to contradict it throughout this and innumerable other articles about immigration.

This article is a brilliant example of how the fallacy equivocation, or the bait and switch technique, works. Liam Byrne's statement is broadly accurate if you think that migration from Romania and Bulgaria should have been restricted to a lower level than the other A8 countries. This isn't just a case of it being my partisan choice to go with what Liam Byrne says. I'm not a Labour supporter anyway, although I am left wing. These figures really do show a vast difference to the figures for A8 migration. They count a lot of the people the government was lambasted for not counting in the existing Worker Registration Scheme for A8 countries, and they're significantly lower than those figures. The government knows more about these migrants than the others, and they're less likely to be able to claim benefits - although whether the amount claimed by other Eastern Europeans is significant is certainly debateable. But the Mail has gone to great lengths to trash them, and hasn't once used a valid argument to do so.

To recap

I'll end with a quick recap of all the dishonest tactics this article uses to misrepresent the new government figures. Here goes.

Out and out false statements

• 120 Bulgarians and Romanians a day have come to the UK to be circus stars

• Over 120 a day in total have come to the UK

• 10,535 have come in total

• The government figures cover the last five months

• The top profession listed by Romanians is circus artiste (remember, it's only the top of a certain subsection, not all Romanians)

• The top profession listed by Bulgarians are chef and carer, with a couple of others thrown in (for the same reasons as above)
  

False impressions the article creates by equivocating

• The actual number of immigrants from te two new EU countries must be absolutely huge, since 120 a day have applied to be circus stars

• The 10,535 total number (itself mysteriously 115 higher than the real total) must be a massive underestimate because of this

• Since most Romanians have applied to be circus stars, they must be lying

• Since most Romanians must be lying about being circus stars, the system must be really easy to cheat
  

• The govenment has predicted that 40,000 more Romanians and Bulgarians will arrive by the end of the year
  

• This prediction is likely to be as wrong as the original estimate of 13,000 a year from the other Eastern European countries

• Since 40,000 a year is nearly 4 times as high as 13,000, the actual number could end up almost 4 times as high as 630,000

• Officials have admitted the figures for Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is the tip of the iceberg

• These figures do not include the self-employed

• Damian Green said the Romanian and Bulgarian figures blow the government's 13,000 a year prediction for other A8 countries out of the water

• Critics warn that the Romanian and Bulgarian migration could now put public services under pressure

• The government has implemented restrictions on migration from these countries because of the 10,000 that have arrived so far

• The government can do little to stop people coming to the UK from these countries if they claim to be self-employed

• David Frosts's quote was in reaction to these new figures, specifically those about Romania and Bulgaria

• The numbers of Eastern Europeans already here who claim benefits is astronomically high

• This creates a burden on the existing non-Eastern European population

• The proportion of Romanians and Bulgarians who claim benefits will be equivalent to those from the other Eastern European countries

• This means the 'benefits bill' will shoot through the roof

• Liam Byrne must be having a laugh to claim that the new restrictions must be successfully keeping the numbers migrating from these two countries lower than from the other Eastern European countries

There may be others I have missed, but as you can see, most of the false impressions this article creates are accomplished by implication and equivication rather than out and out lying. And I hope I've managed to show that the lie that seems most pointless and dismissable at first - that 120 a day have come to be circus stars - is actually the lie that enables the equivocation and shoddy implications to be made in the rest of the article.

Equivocation is the favourite tool of the tabloids - especially the Mail. Complain about any of the second set of false impressions in this article, and you'll get the reply of, 'but we were talking about the other set of figures then,' even though the fact that this was never made clear shows that the paper isn't really interested in allowing the reader to make the distinction.

I was talking about this article with my other half last night - because we have a dynamite social life - and she said, 'but that's not reporting the news - that's just propaganda!'

She was dead right.

Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"

This is the fifth in a series of posts about exactly how the Mail article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' misleads the paper's readers. The other parts of the series are linked at the bottom of the post.

The article doesn't just perform a bait and switch and then carry on by telling the truth about the other A8 countries. It misleads about them, too - and carries on switching confusingly between them and Romania and Bulgaria.

The first way the article misleads is by packing the centre section with out of context attributed and unattributed quotes. These quotes are used in two ways - to further muddy the waters about the differences between the A8 figures and those from Romania and Bulgaria, and to give the impression that a host of external authorities agree with the article.

The quotes

First off, we have shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green. Of course he's going to be negative about government figures. It's his job. But what's interesting is how the quote is used. Here it is:

Conservative shadow immigration minister Damian Green said: "This blows out of the water the Government's proclamation that just 13,000 workers a year would arrive from the eight former eastern bloc countries."

Now, there's not a lot wrong with that in itself, but remember that leading into this, the article has made a point that purely applies to A8 migration, while giving the impression that it applies to Romania and Bulgaria. Plus, the entire focus of this article is supposed to be about Romanian and Bulgarian immigration. So, although when Damian says, 'This blows...' he's probably talking exclusively about the 49,000 who came in the first quarter of this year from the A8 countries, or at least the total figures for last year. The article gives the impression that he's talking about the 630,000 overall total as well as Romanians or Bulgarians.

Next, we have Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch. Round of applause please. Thank you. Here's the quote:

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: "The latest figures confirm that massive levels of immigration from Eastern Europe continue unabated.

"The extra 10,000 from Romania and Bulgaria that the Government knows about is a further addition to the total.

"This makes it even more essential to reduce immigration from elsewhere."

Ladies and gentlemen, Sir Andrew Green. When he's talking about the latest figures, he means the latest figures A8 migration and for Romania and Bulgaria. Then he shifts to talk about Romanians and Bulgarians, and then he makes a nonsense statement about reducing immigration from elsewhere. Why? What level is it at?

Anyway, it's the way the Mail uses this quote that's misleading - not necessarily the quote itself. What the article did with the switch was create the impression that some things that cast doubt on the figures for A8 migration also apply to migrants from the two new countries when they don't. So before they get this far, the reader has been given the impression that the self-employed and family members from Romania and Bulgaria are not counted. So when they see the comment about adding the 10,000 - with the nice little 'that the government know about' caveat - it only serves to bolster the idea that the two new countries' figures measure the same thing in the same way. But the government knows about a much, much higher proportion of Romanians and Bulgarians, because self employed people, some family members, those who claim to be self-sufficient and students are counted.

So, in effect, these two quotes extend the false association between the two sets of figures by adding what seem to be confirmations from two external sources that the association is valid.

Unattributed quotes and more equivocation

Always be sceptical of unattributed quotes. There are a couple here that reinforce the impression that people external to this paper support the article's criticism. Here's the first:

Critics are now warning that key public services, including schools and hospitals, could be put under increasing pressure.

The trouble with this is that critics of the government figures would include the writers of this article. This might be nothing more than a made up warning. Next:

Business leaders say they are concerned that up to half a million British youngsters may find themselves out of work.

'Business leaders' is wonderfully vague. Which ones? Do they know what they're talking about? How can we evaluate whether or not their conclusions are supported by the evidence? Why should we trust them? Do they even exist?

We'll come back, but for now, let's skip forward a bit to the next attributed quote in the article, as it probably sheds a bit of light on this:

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "The Government must understand that migration is not a long-term solution to the tragic skills shortages that many young people have.

"Over 500,000 18 to 24 year olds are presently out of work. Yet no one seems to notice because many of the jobs have been filled by willing migrant workers.

"This is unsustainable and we are in danger of creating a two tier society, with many going straight from school to a life on welfare."

This is probably who the paper is referring to as 'business leaders'. One guy. This quote is separated from the unattributed one to give the impression of greater numbers. Initially, I thought this might be a quote taken from a statement about something else, since nothing in the quote links it to Romanian and Bulgarian migration. Turns out I was wrong. It is about the Bulgarian and Romanian figures, buth the reason there's no link is because it has been cut out. It's been cut out because it's positive. It's from a BCC press release with the snappy title 'BCC statement: migration not the long term answer to tackling the tragic skills shortages of British school leavers'.

Here's the section of the release that the Mail has removed:

The current buoyant UK economy means it is no surprise that the high level of migration from Eastern Europe is continuing.

UK businesses value the benefit that migrants bring, recognising the work ethic that so many have in comparison to young potential British employees.

Wouldn't you know it - it was the positive bit! Who'd have thought that eh? It shouldn't come as a surprise, but the Mail have cherrypicked the negative bit. The bit about the benefit and the positive work ethic. Well, if you were about to start talking about how eastern Europeans are workshy benefit scroungers, you'd want to downplay that as well, wouldn't you?

Little swicthes among the quotes

Going back to where we'd got to before I skipped to that quote, there's a nice little bit of misdirection about the Romania and Bulgaria figures:

To tackle the problem, ministers have promised to limit the number of work permits handed out to Eastern Europeans to 20,000.

Since the article is mainly focused on migration from the two new countries, and has included quotes that deliberately serve to further the confusion between the two sets of figures, the reader could take away the impression that these new 10,535 from Romania and Bulgaria are what have led to the limit being introduced. It isn't a blatant implication, but there could be confusion that isn't clarified.

At this point, the paper could make the scope of the new figures from Romania and Bulgaria clear by revealing the number who have been issued with work permits so far. At the moment, the number including family members is 815 - out of 1,115 applications. The rest of the 10,000 are made up of those exempt from needing permits, the highly skilled, the self employed and those who register as self-sufficient. Keep that in mind when you see what the next unattributed quote is:

But critics have pointed out that the Government can do little to stop immigrants travelling to Britain or claiming to be selfemployed.

This comes straight after the article has just made a claim specifically about Romanian and Bulgarian immigration - mentioning the 20,000 limit. It then makes a definite claim about the figures, linking the sentences with the word 'but'. But if you're talking about the Romanian and Bulgarian figures, this sentence is demonstrably false. Looking at the actual figures, we can see that 155 people who applied to come as self-employed people to the UK have had their application refused. So yes, the government can stop people coming claiming to be self employed.

This may be getting a little confused, so it's time to boil everything down here a bit.

• Damian Green's quote is about one set of migrants, but is used in such a way that makes that fact unclear

• Sir Andrew Green's quote - which itself isn't entirely clear - has been used in such a way to compund the impression that the A8 migration is the same as Romanian and Bulgarian migration

• Later on, the paper quotes David Frost of the BCC, nicely cutting the bit where he mentions the benefit of this migration. It separates this quote froma an earlier unattributed comment from 'business leaders', which is likely to be the paper's way of using the same quote twice
  

• All these quotes are used to make it appear as though the three people quoted are agreeing with what the Mail has said up until this point. That includes the lie about the number of circus artistes

• The paper uses unattributed quotes to make its own criticisms look well supported by a host of external authorities

• A definite statement is made about Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, with a little bit of equivocation that makes it unclear exactly what has led to the imposition of a 20,000 worker's permit limit

• A statement is made that only applies to the other A8 countries, but is linked to the previous statement about Romania and Bulgaria with a 'but', giving the false impression that there is no way to stop Romanians and Bulgarians designated as self-employed from coming to the UK

This is taking some time, but there really are lots of ways this article misleads and covering all of them will take a lot of effort. Bear with me. There's only the exciting conclusion to come.

Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"

This is the fourth in a series of posts about exactly how the Mail article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' misleads the paper's readers. The other parts of the series are linked at the bottom of the post.

So, the bait and switch is complete. The rest of the article shifts confusingly between talking about A8 migrants and those from Romania and Bulgaria, making statements that only apply to one in order to exaggerate the rate and implications of migration from Romania and Bulgaria. More on the rest of the article later, but for now I want to look at the logic of hanging the article from a lie about circus performers.

Why bother lying about the number of 'circus artistes' and make that the whole focus of the article?

The headline claim is quite transparently a deliberate lie. This is something that initially seems baffling. What's the point of singling out this one figure to focus on? At first, it just seems like a Daily Mail eccentricity, but doing this serves four very useful purposes for the article. I've briefly touched on a couple already, but not explicitly.

Exaggerating the overall total of migrants

Saying that 120 a day arrive to be circus starts gives the impression that the real total is well over 120 a day. The article even out and out states that the total is more than 120 a day. But given the possible number of professions, 120 circus stars a day gives the impression that the total of all the other professions put together must be huge.

Giving the impression that people registering have lied

One of the things that saying most Romanians have applied to be circus artistes does is make them look like liars. How can over 10,000 people all have jobs as circus stars? It seems unbelieveable because it is actually a lie. The journalist must know that only 40 Romanians have applied to be circus artistes, as the number appear in the same table that circus artiste is top of. It's still reported as 120 a day.

Giving the impression that the appplication process is an easily cheated shambles

If that many really had registered with joining the circus in mind, it would make the system look decidedly dodgy. If it seems obvious to the reader that 10,000 people can't have jobs as circus artistes, then it should also be obvious to the people processing the applications. But 120 a day are getting registered in this profession and it's the most common profession claimed by Romanians. So a bunch of gullible fools are allowing the system to be cheated.

Creating the bridge between the bait and the switch

By mentioning that the most common profession for Romanians is 'circus artiste' right after mentioning the government's prediction of a further 40,000 Romanians and Bulgarians arriving this year, and opening the sentence with the 'For rather than the plumbers and builders many expected,' statement - the article boosts the impression that the 40,000 prediction will be a vast underestimate.

By then switching to talk about how a previous government prediction was wrong, the article creates its switch.

At the same time, it casts further doubt on how accurate the "actual" total of 10,535 applications can be.

A useful hook - and a useful label

Given what this misleading stat has allowed the paper to do, it is a very useful hook to hang the rest of the article from. But there's one other thing.

It gives a nice little label to use as a stereotype for Romanians. The paper had already gone into fits of panic about the number of gypsies set to come from Romania, and circuses are associated with gypsies. The label links in nicely with this.

Thanks to the Mail we now have Romanian circus star along with Polish plumber to add to our list of questionable racial epithets.

So focusing on circuses isn't just eccentric. It's very useful indeed to the Mail.

Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"

This is the third in a series of posts about exactly how the Mail article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' misleads the paper's readers. The other parts of the series are linked at the bottom of the post.

This has been pretty extensively edited since I originally posted it. I had stupidly swallowed one of the implications of the article - that the government had predicted 40,000 more Romanians and Bulgarians would arrive in the rest of this year. They haven't. Somebody else did, and they were talking about what would happen if there were no restrictions. There were.

After the opening that talks specifically about Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, the article begins to shift between talking about that and general immigration form Eastern Europe, starting with a less than clear switch.

The switch

The actual switch comes in the sentence:

At the same time, the flood of migrants from other eastern European countries shows no sign of abating. More than 49,000 entered the UK in 2006, putting the total number registered with the Home Office at 630,000 - a far cry from the Government's initial estimate of 13,000.

Notice how the article has started talking about immigration from the other Eastern European (A8) countries without mentioning that the figures for this will come from a different report and are measured in a different way. As far as your average Mail reader will know, these figures are taken from the same report.

False claims within the switch

Something I missed initially is the neat little claim in there that more than 49,000 entered the UK in 2006. This is a little bizarre. It's probably a mistake rather than deliberate, but it is odd. See, there was a total of 234,565 applicants, with 227,710 approved last year, according to the latest Accession Monitoring Report. So that's just a little bit more than 49,000. It seems the article is referring to the 49,000 applicants so far this year.

But mistake or not, the figure creates a lovely link between this and the sentences leading up to the switch. Remember, before the switch the article mentioned a prediction of 40,000 for the rest of the year. That would make an overall prediction for 2007 that is remarkably close to 49,000. So a connection is created between an annual number of around 50,000 and a total over three years of 630,000. Nice mistake, eh?

Plus, it's a small point, but the paper habitually counts every applicant, even those turned down, in its calculations. The total number of approved applicants from A8 countries is 605,375. Close to about 25,000 less than the impression the paper gives.

Beyond that - the paper hasn't even given a little caveat to show that a large number of this 630,000 will have already left the country. Nothing. As far as its readers are concerned, 630,000 Eastern Europeans have been added to the population in three years.

Finally, the government didn't initially estimate that 13,000 people would come to the UK from Eastern Europe in three years. That was an annual estimate of net migration from those countries, adjusted for the number who left. That would give a total of three times the Mail's claim here, at 39,000. PLus, the prediction was of what would happen if the other countries in the EU didn't introduce restrictions, whereas most did. This is not to say that the government estimate wasn't woefully, woefully out of whack. It was. It just wasn't as bad as the Mail has claimed. Again.

How the switch creates confusion between four sets of figures

Comparing initial estimates from the government with actual numbers registering from the A8 countries serves to make a connection for the reader between four differently calculated sets of figures. These figures are:

• The Bulgarian and Romanian Accession Statistics from the government, which include the self-employed, the self-sufficient and some family members

• The Accession Moitoring Report from the government, which includes those from the A8 countries applying to the Worker Registration Scheme. These do not include the self-employed, students who aren't working, the self-sufficient or any family members unless they've applied to the scheme too

• 'The impact of EU enlargement on migration flows' - a government estimate of numbers of how many Eastern European migrants would arrive in the UK if all other EU countries decided not to place restriction on them. Most did

• A set of figures from the IPPR 'EU Enlargement Bulgaria and Romania - migration implications for the UK' that predicted how many people would come from Bulgaria and Romania if the UK didn't introduce restrictions. We did
  

In the two sentences leading up to the switch, the article mentions a prediction of 40,000 Romanians and Bulgarians arriving in the rest of the year. In my initial post about this, I said that this was a reference to a government prediction. That's because I swallowed the article's implication that it is. It isn't. It's actually most likely to be from a prediction made by the IPPR - before the government decided to intriduce restrictions, and assumed the same rules that apply to those from the A8 countries would apply to Romania and Bulgaria. They don't.

To give an idea of why IPPR prediction is incompatible with the actual Romania and Bulgaria figures, the number of people who have applied under similar circumstances as the A8 countries - that is to say excluding the self-employed (I'm chucking in students and the self-sufficient and all family members because the difference is so great as to not matter) is about 6,700. For there to be 40,000 more in the rest of this year, the rate would have to be double the first quarter of this year in every following quarter.

How the article uses the confusion between four sets of figures

The prediction figures are incompatible, as they all measure different things in different potential circumstances. But the reader is clearly expected to connect the 40,000 prediction figure with the result of 630,000 over three years. Whether that's by connecting the 40,000 with the 13,000 initial government estimate for A8 countries, or the 49,000 the paper erroneously claims arrived last year isn't relevant. The whole point of all this is to make the prediction seem wildly underestimated and give the impression that we're likely to see around 630,000 Romanians and Bulgarians over the next three years.

Just in case the numbers themselves aren't enough, in between the sentence about the 40,000 estimate and the switch, we have the one that says:

For rather than the plumbers and builders many expected [yadda yadda yadda about circus performers]

Which is there to link the two sentences with an example of how people were wrong about what they expected from the Romanians and Bulgarians, casting doubt on the prediction that isn't relevant anyway.

This may well be getting confusing. To boil things down, the article has said here:

• There's been a prediction for 40,000 to arrive in the rest of the year

• Everybody expected them to be plumbers and builders but they were wrong

• There were around 49,000 A8 migrants arriving last year (which is damn close to the prediction for this year from Romania and Bulgaria)
  

• The government predicted 13,000 to arrive from the A8 countries
  

• 630,000 have arrived in total so far from the A8 countries
  

Whichever way you slice it, the switch is clearly intended to make the reader connect any prediction with a ridiculously high actual rise in population. The confused jumble of figures is used in the same way as the confused jumble in the bait. To imply that the government figures are a mess and can't be trusted.

How the article uses the switch

The next sentence makes this claim:

But officials admit this could be the tip of the iceberg, as the figures do not include the self-employed, spouses, children or those who do not bother to register.

Aside from being unnecessarily scaremongering and possibly lying with the 'tip of the iceberg' claim (I seriously doubt any official has said this, given that the 630,000 number doesn't count the number who have returned home or some 25,000 rejected applications), this sentence makes a beautiful implication about the unreliability of the Romanian and Bulgarian figures.

The switch connected the measurement of A8 immigrants with Romanians and Bulgarians by using some slick implications. Remember, the reader of this article is highly unlikely to know that there are in fact four sets of figures here, and that the methods of measuring are different and count different things - and the paper has not made this clear. So most regular Mail readers will not know that self employed Romanians and Bulgarians are counted, as well as some family members, and will think these figures are also the tip of the iceberg for the same reasons that the paper is putting forward for the A8 figures.

The switch has been performed. The paper started talking about one report and shifted to talking about another - using two other reports along the way - without even letting the reader know that more than one report exists.

Slippery, eh?

Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"

This is the second in a series of posts about exactly how the Mail article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' misleads the paper's readers. The other parts of the series are linked at the bottom of the post.

The bait and switch

Now, on to the article itself. The biggest and most obvious way this article misleads its readers is by functioning as an example of the fallacy of equivocation, otherwise known as the bait and switch technique. This is a favourite technique of the tabloids, with an article starting by talking about one thing in the headline and opening, and then subtly shifting to talk about something else later on in the article without making the shift clear, so the reader thinks they're still reading about the original thing.

It's a bit like a dodgy double glazing salesman talking about how wonderful their super deluxe models are while quoting a ridiculously cheap price without letting on that the wonderfully cheap price is for their bog-standard-let-the-rain-in-rattle-in-the-wind-piece-of-crap models until the contract is signed.

The way this article works is by setting up one big bait and switch, with mini switches backwards and forwards between two sets of figures throughout the article. The thing is, not only does the article never make it clear when it is switching, it never makes it clear that there is any difference between the two things it's talking about in the first place. On top of that, there are little snippets of misinformation within the main bait and switch structure that bolster the false impression the article creates.

So, on to the bait.

The bait

The headine and opening sentences function as the bait in this article, which will be switched later. More on the switch in the next post. But for now . . .

The headline

Never mind for now that the real number of people from Bulgaria and Romania who have applied to be circus artistes is not 120 a day but less than one half of one person per day. I covered that in 'The Daily Mail tells lies about immigration. Again.'

Aside from being a big, huge lie, the headline potentially sets up another false impression before the reader hits the actual number. If 120 a day come to be circus stars, there must be absolutely loads streaming in. Very few people would read this headline and think that it must mean that every single Bulgarian and Romanian who has come here in the last three months has registered to be a circus star. Most - me included, at first - would think that these 120 a day are just a fraction of the total. Not in fact more than the total, which is the case (the total number of people whose applications to come to the UK have been approved works out at 88 per day).

The opening two sentences

The impression created by the headline is bolstered by the opening sentence:

More than 120 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants are arriving in Britain every day, the Home Office revealed.

The headline says 120 a day come to be circus stars. Here, the paper explicitly states that the total is more than 120 a day. The real total - or rather, the Mail's version of it - is revealed in the next sentence. But before we get to that, let's just recap what a reader is likely to already be thinking:

• The government's immigration figures are always underestimates

• The number of people who have come from Bulgaria and Romania is actually between 60 and 150 thousand

• 120 a day come to be circus stars

• More than 120 a day have come overall

So now, the "real" number:

The figures - the first since the two countries joined the EU in January - show 10,535 have registered to work in Britain in the last five months.

I put the "real" in scare quotes because the figure of 10,535 doesn't appear anywhere in the actual Home Office stats (see 'The Daily Mail tells lies about immigration. Again.' for more). But what do you think the reaction will be of someone who already has the ideas put forward by the Mail in their mind? It can only be disbelief.

Even without having the ideas put forward by the Mail in mind, the reader can only think of the government figures as a complete and utter shambles. They say over 120 people are arriving every day. They say 120 a day are claiming to be circus stars. And yet, they say that only 10,535 have arrived in five months.

Except they don't.

Every single claim the paper has made so far is false. A total of only fifty five people have registered to be circus artistes, not 120 a day (which would make 10,800 in three months, or 18,000 over five). Less than 120 people a day have registered, not more than - and that's over three months. The government figures cover three months, not five. And they show 10,420 have attempted to register, not 10,535. It's actually the paper's own made up figures that don't add up, not the government's.

Not only that, but the 'arrive in Britain' language used misleads even further. The number 'arriving in Britain' to be anything is actually a fair bit less than 10,420. Some applications to register have been rejected or withdrawn, and at no point does the paper make it clear that the mysterious 10,535 it quotes would refer to the total number of applications - not the total number of permits issued. The actual number of people from Romania and Bulgaria who have had their applications to come to live in the UK approved is just 7,935. Even if you assume that every single outstanding application will be approved and add them to the total, you get 9,685.

The list of things a reader will now be thinking is:

• The government's immigration figures are always underestimates

• The number of people who have come from Bulgaria and Romania is actually between 60 and 150 thousand

• 120 a day come to be circus stars

• More than 120 a day have come overall

• The government's overall figure is actually lower than 120 a day for three months

• The government's figures cover a five month period.

What can a reader do with the government number but dismiss it?

The next two sentence/paragraphs

The next two sentence/paragraphs connect the bait with the switch, so there will be more on them later. But as part of the bait, they create some dodgy false impressions of their own. The first one says:

Some 40,000 more are predicted to arrive by the end of the year. And many will presumably be seeking employment in a Big Top.

Predicted by whom? At first, I assumed that this meant the 40,000 were part of the Bulgarian and Romanian Accession Statistics, but they're not, although the paper definitely gives the impression that they are. The stats don't appear anywhere there. Given that Liam Byrne refused to forecast the number of Romanians and Bulgarians who might arrive in 2007, it seems highly unlikely that this is a government prediction.

The closest I can find is a forecast by the IPPR, which came out before any restrictions were placed on Romanian and Bulgarian workers, and suggested that 56,000 would arrive by the end of the year. It assumes a similar set up to the Worker Registration Scheme, so does not count self employed, highly skilled and otherwise exempt people. The government figures do count these people. The prediction isn't compatible. It became useless after the government introduced restrictions.

This becomes more relevant when discussing the switch, but for now it's worth noting another sneaky shift between sets of figures to set up the bait.

The next paragraph is this:

For rather than the plumbers and builders many expected, the top profession listed by Romanians is "circus artiste". Most Bulgarians claim to have worked as chefs or carers while musician, researcher and hotel worker also make the cut.

It does some important things to bridge between the bait and the switch, but more on that later.

For now, it's worth noting first of all that this isn't actually true. As I mentioned in 'The Daily Mail tells lies...' it's only the top profession from a certain group. The total number of Romanians registered as circus artiste is just 40. The same goes for chef and carers for Bulgarians. The total for both put together is also 40. Only 5 Bulgarians are listed as musucians, and 5 researchers. No hotel workers make the list, but I have an idea that the figures have been amended since they were first published, since I'm sure there was no figure for Bulgarian circus artistes.

Another important thing is that this claim casts more doubt on the government stats with the creation of another false impression. And that is - if most Romanians are claiming to be circus artistes, they're probably not telling the truth. Remember, we've already been told that the number who are claiming that amount to 120 a day. How could there possibly be around 10,000 vacancies for circus artiste in this country? If the government are falling for their claims, then they're gullible in the extreme and allowing as many as 120 a day to cheat the system in this way. This helps throw the government figures into further doubt.

The bait is rotten

In my example of a bait and switch at the beginning of this article, I used the image of a double glazing salesman talking about the benefits of his super deluxe model and only mentioning the price of his bog standard model. But this article is worse than that. It's more like the salesman talking about the super deluxe double glazing and pretending it does extra things that it actualy doesn't, like turning into a TV screen and shooting out lasers to kill flies that buzz around it. Because pretty much everything this article has claimed in its bait is actually not true at all, and it's all set up to make the government figures look less reliable or accurate than they are.

Here are the set of things a reader may well be thinking now, as they get to the article's switch. They include some things the article has implied rather than claimed, so not every reader would have necessarily picked up all of these:

• The government's immigration figures are always underestimates

• The number of people who have come from Bulgaria and Romania is actually between 60 and 150 thousand

• 120 a day come to be circus stars

• More than 120 a day have come overall

• The government's overall figure is actually lower than 120 a day for three months

• The government's figures cover a five month period

• The government have predicted a further 40,000 this year

• The government figures don't add up at all

• The government is incompetently allowing most Romanians - 120 a day - fraudulently register as circus artiste

So, on to the switch.

Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part I: "The Context"

I had a quick look at the Mail's dishonest article '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars' yesterday, focusing on how the headline claim was in fact a lie. The real overall total spread across three months was 55.

What I'd like to do now though, is have a closer look at the structure of the article and touch upon the language it uses to show how a newspaper can mislead and misinform while keeping the out and out lying to a minimum. This sort of thing doesn't lend itself to being covered in a few quicky dashed out first draft blog posts, so I will revisit these to tidy up. I'd like to do this with every article I cover here, but don't often have the space and time. This will be spread across a series of posts over the next couple of days. Links to further parts are at the bottom of this post. Sorry if it gets wordy. Skip it if you like.

The context

First of all, the context that this article appears in is important. Without wanting to sound all wanky, the context of this article is an example of the 'Withdrawn!' tactic on a macro level. The Mail has led into this one with two other misleading articles that I covered in 'They go together like Batman and Robin' and 'How to lie about immigration with the Mail'. Anybody who regularly reads the Mail, and I pity those who do, will have already read two grossly inflated sets of figures before they come to this one. They will already have the idea that the number of people coming here from Romania and Bulgaria is between 60 and 150 thousand. This article is the equivalent of the last (or very near last) paragraphs in an article that uses the 'Withdrawn!' tactic, which is the paper's effective withdrawal of what it has already said.

However, there is an important thing about the 'Withdrawn!' tactic I didn't mention explicitly in my original posting about it. In setting up an article with a certain set of statements and then withdrawing them by including the truth later on, a newspaper is giving the impression that the withdrawal - the section of the article that is actually true - is a lie, or at the very least, wrong.

Take the articles I covered in 'Political Correctness Gone Mad in the Telegraph'. They start with definite statements about schools banning crosses (except, bizarrely, the Mail, which uses scare quotes) and then follow these with more definite statements about banning crosses before including quotes from a Councillor that show what had really happened at the end of the article.

This gives the impression that the Councillor is lying. Saying, 'this happened, but someone said something else did,' is sending a very clear message to the reader that the person they've quoted is lying or wrong, because the paper has already told its reader what's happened. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If a newspaper publishes an article with the headline 'Bombers are all spongeing asylum seekers', it wants its readers to believe that the bombers are all spongeing asylum seekers, not that none are. It doesn't take Stephen effing Hawking to work that one out.

Now, back to the context of the Mail article, which operates in the same way. The Mail's readers are unlikely to think that these figures are the correct ones rather than the older ones the paper has reported, because they've already been primed to think that way. (The article itself strains very hard to give the impression that they're wrong too, but more on that later). Not just by the two articles about the same figures, which function in a similar way to the misleading headline and opening statements in the cross ban articles, but by virtually every article the paper ever publishes about immigration. I can't remember seeing an article in the Mail about immigration that doesn't mention government underestimates and the unreliability of official statistics. I've covered loads here now, and I'm bloody tired of them.

So, even before they've read a single word of the Mail article, a regular Mail reader is set up look at the new figures in disbelief. Whether they'd seen the earlier claims about 300,000 people coming from Romania and Bulgaria in the first 20 months of accession, the claims about 60,000 so far this year, the claims about 150,000 this year, all the articles that mention how badly the government figures underestimate true figure or all of the above, a figure of around 10,000 will seem shockingly low.

This is part of a series of posts. Click below for the further thrilling instalments in 'How the Daily Mail lies about immigration'!

How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part II: "The Bait"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part III: "The Switch"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part IV: "The Big Little Lie"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part V: "The Quotes"
How the Daily Mail lies about immigration. Part VI: "The Final Chapter"

And the prequel:

The Daily Mail tells lies about immigration. Again.

The Daily Mail tells lies about immigration. Again.

Unbelieveable. Seriously. The Mail's reaction to the official figures of how many people have registered for work from Romania and Bulgaria is quite literally unbelieveable. Because it is a tissue of made up nonsense. Obsolete has more on this, which is well worth a look. The jist of it is that the real figure of Romanians and Bulgarians who have come to work in the UK since accession in January isn't 60,000 as the Mail originally claimed, or 150,000 - which was its second exaggerated claim, but 8,000.

The Mail's headline is '120 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria arrive in Britain every day to be circus stars'. I shit you not. According to the Mail's headline, every single person who applied to work in the UK from Romania and Bulgaria wanted to be a circus star. Or in fact more than the total number, as it turns out. I am almost lost for words. Of course, there's a withdrawal, but we'll get to that in a minute.

First of all, the Mail article opens with this:

More than 120 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants are arriving in Britain every day, the Home Office revealed.

The figures - the first since the two countries joined the EU in January - show 10,535 have registered to work in Britain in the last five months.

This opening claim is really weird. This is what's wrong:

• 10,535 registering over 5 months does not equal 120 a day. It equals around 70 a day. 120 a day for five months would mean 18,000.

• Over three months, it equals 117 a day. Either way, that's less than 120. Not more than.

• The report doesn't even cover five months. It covers three.

• The real figures do not show a total of 10,535 applications. They show 10,420.
  

Here are the real Bulgarian and Romanian Accession Statistics. Hurrah! I can't find any way to make a total of 10,535. I can't see where the extra 115 come from at all. Let's give the Mail the benefit of the doubt and just say it's shit rather than that it's so desparate for a higher number it will sneakily add on an extra few and then claim their number per day covers a five rather than three month period.

So, onto the circus star thing:

Some 40,000 more are predicted to arrive by the end of the year. And many will presumably be seeking employment in a Big Top.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that 40,000 is less than the number the paper previously claimed for just one month. Anyway:

For rather than the plumbers and builders many expected, the top profession listed by Romanians is "circus artiste". Most Bulgarians claim to have worked as chefs or caers while musician, researcher and hotel worker also make the cut.

This is the limp withdrawal of the headline claim. It's a little bit misleading, too. Surprised? Here's how.

First, it ignores an important caveat from the actual report, which says:

The data in this section [the section including the 'circus artiste' figure] do not provide a full picture of the sectoral and occupational distribution of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals taking employment in the United Kingdom – solely those seeking access to the labour market through the work permit arrangements where access to the labour market is considered against labour market criteria.

Right, so of a certain group of applicants, the top listed profession is 'circus artiste'. Handily, there's a total of how many total applications there are in this group. It's 410. I didn't miss out a zero. It's 410. So out of these 410 applications, the top listed for Romanians is 'circus artiste'.

Another handy thing. The report actually gives a total for how many are listed as 'circus artiste'. It's 55. I didn't miss out a zero then, either. Fifty five.

Now, we know the Mail lies through its teeth in headlines, and we know it uses the 'Withdrawn!' tactic to deal with that, and sometimes that can desensitise us - or at least me - from the process.

Just try to put everything you know about the Mail from your mind for a second and think about what this story has done. The headline says 120 people a day have come to the UK to be circus stars. 120 a day. For 90 days. Making a total of over ten thousand. And the real number is fifty five.

There's something even worse than that bald faced lie. And that's that I've become so desensitised to tabloid tactics that I wasn't going to mention that because I know that the lame 'top profession listed by Romanians' will probably save the paper from getting in any trouble with the PCC. I'm so used to seeing lying headlines that it didn't seem to matter too much that the Mail exaggerated yet another number in a headline. But we're allowing papers to claim that fifty five are more than ten thousand here. It's not like adding a sneaky extra 115 to a total of over ten thousand. It's multiplying a figure by nearly 200.

There's some more sleight of hand to follow though. The Mail will never disappoint us in that regard:

At the same time, the flood of migrants from other eastern European countries shows no sign of abating. More than 49,000 entered the UK in 2006, putting the total number registered with the Home Office at 630,000 - a far cry from the Government's initial estimate of 13,000.

But officials admit this could be the tip of the iceberg, as the figures do not include the self-employed, spouses, children or those who do not bother to register.

See that last bit, about 'the figures do not include' and yadda yadda yadda? That only applies to the other Eastern European countries. Self-employed people are included in the Romania and Bulgaria figures. Family members are also included. Not content with adding some sneaky extra numbers to the total counted by the report or pretending that they're all circus performers, the Mail have decided to give the impression that even more people should be added to the total.

The rest is all about total eastern European migration, which is a different thing that works in a different way. All the talk about benefits doesn't really apply to the Romanians and Bulgarians. But doing a separate article wouldn't allow the paper to pretend that it did.

I accept that the actual number of migrants from Bulgaria and Romania is probably a bit higher than these real figures show, especially if what Greg Hands said is right. I accept that the number of people who came from the A8 countries is much higher than expected. I even - and this might come as a shock - accept that we should take proper measures to ensure that the arrival of new people is handled smoothly and with as little disruption as possible to existing local communities. But that's no reason to lie about things.

That the tabloids do shows that there is no point for the government to pander to them. The government went with tabloid sentiment in introducing limits for people from Romania and Bulgaria, but it didn't shut the tabloids up. They still lie about the numbers, because 'immigration is out of control and we're being invaded' is one of the lies they peddle to sell newspapers. Look at what happened here, with introducing limits on immigration from these two countries and counting people not counted in A8 accession. The Mail has still pretended that those people haven't been counted, and still pretended that they're all circus performers. Had the Government announced a total ban on all migration from these two countries, the Mail would still have pretended we were being swamped by them. Just look at how much higher the paper's estimates were than these figures before they were released. It was multiplied by seven and a half times in one article, and just under nineteen times in another.

This is the paper that is capable of taking a report about the effects of Eastern European migration that says:

Police report isolated examples of hate crimes, but there is no regular or widespread disorder.

and reporting it with the headline 'Migrant surge led to "disorder and crime"'.

As Obsolete says, Margaret Hodge gives a helping hand to the BNP once a year, but the tabloids to it almost every day.

*UPDATE* I almost forgot to say! At no point does the paper actually give the real figure for the number of applications that were actually approved. It only gives a total number of applications (plus an extra 115 for luck). Their 'have registered' is misleading. Some have just attempted to register, and been turned down. The real number of people granted permission to work is 7,935. Or 88 per day.

*UPDATE II* The article I linked to is a different version of Obsolete's, but I followed the link from his site so the Mail have probably updated the article to take out things like the bit Obsolete quoted, saying:

Today's figures, which do not detail the numbers of Romanians or Bulgarians who have come to live rather than work,

because it isn't true. The figures do cover people who have come to live rather than work, in the 'self sufficient' category. In a way, it's a shame that the Mail overwrite old versions of articles. It was a laugh being able to compare two versions of an article in 'I wanna sex you up'.

*UPDATE III* Ive edited the references to 40 people being circus artistes to 55 since 15 Bulgarians who didn't seem to have been included in the figures have popped up in the report now.

So, the Mail lies and bullies

Every now and again, my hatred of the tabloids wanes a little. Even after dredging through articles that lie about immigration or what Muslims have said, or talk up lame non-events and turn them into Political Correctness Gone Mad legends, occasionally, if I've had a look through them for a few days and not found anything to comment on, I let my guard down and think they might have calmed down a bit. Still, I can always trust them to redeem themselves with some hateful, lying bile that proves how nasty they really are.

I knew there'd be something up when I saw this article in the Hate - "'Hitler' Bush, by Whitehall's jogging blogger", but I have to confess that I'm not familiar with Owen Barder's blog. I mean, even reading the Hate's claims didn't give the impression that it'd be that controversial, but since the blog's been taken down I couldn't really check for myself.

Turns out my gut instinct was right. Unity has a couple of posts on how much of a bunch of lies this article is, and there's more at Chicken Yoghurt, Our Word is Our Weapon, The Yorkshire Ranter and, definitely not least, from Tim Worstall. Read all of them. Plus Bloggerheads and Stumbling and Mumbling.

Truly, truly despicable. It'd be nice for Simon Walters, the journalist in question, to answer Unity's challenge and try to defend himself, but that won't be happening since there really is no defence. Makes me worry about only half heartedly trying to remain anonymous, given Tim's comment:

Which is really something that all of us other bloggers might want to start thinking about. If they hound Owen out of his job on the basis of the above farrago and tissue of innuendo and misquotation then that's rather going to be the end of this enjoyable pastime for most of us, isn't it? Anyone writing tens of thousands of words over the years is open to such an assassination of the character.

Maybe I'm lucky I don't have many readers, eh?

Elsewhere, the Mail are trying to show they're hip, baby - and down with the kids. Makes you wonder how many people had to be edited out for saying they associate the paper with lying, bullying, vindictive hatred.

Fine the Mail for littering our brains

You just know this is going to enter the PC gone mad official mythology, even though it's just rubbish. And yes, I am proud of that pun. Fine me eighty quid.

The story is 'Toddler fined £89 for dropping two crisps'. "What's that?" you say, "Somebody actually fined a toddler? It's Political Correctness Gone Mad!" Except a toddler wasn't fined. Her grandmother was, sort of. And when I say 'sort of', I mean 'wasn't'. Here's the withdrawal of the headline, in the story's opening sentence:

A woman was handed an £80 litter fine after her toddler grandchild dropped some crisps on the pavement.

Right. A woman was fined. Not a toddler. Or not, in fact. Note the shift in language from 'fined' to 'was handed an £80 litter fine'. See, the shift in language is there because the woman was never actually fined in the end. It was waived. As usual, we find this out in the very last sentence:

The council did however allow Mrs Jubb's appeal against the fine, saying the penalty would be waived because of the 'exceptional circumstances'.

Nobody was fined after all, let alone a toddler.

There's another bizarre shift in language in the article from a claim of an 89 quid fine in the headline to an 80 quid fine in the article. Don't ask me which one's real. Doesn't really matter, since nobody had to pay a single penny. *UPDATE* Picked up a copy of yesterday's Metro off my bus seat this morning, and it has a picture of the actual fine notice where you can just about make out that it was for £80. So who know's where the £89 came from? Me. I know! The journalist's arse!

A classic example of how some dodgy Council official getting overzealous and ending up overruled can be used as an example of how we're being oppressed by our vicious lefty PC Overlords.

The annoying thing about this is that it will enter the 'It's Politically Correct loony left Councils Gone Mad' mythology even though Crawley Council is Tory. Bah.

*UPDATE* The Sun's version. Includes more from the Council, including an admission of being over zealous and being happy to cancel it. I think this means there wasn't an official appeal, which is what the Mail implies, but a snotty letter that was answered with the fine being cancelled. You might think I'm being pedantic for pointing out the difference. I'm not. I'm being pernickity.

Political Correctness Gone Mad in the Telegraph

I'm used to seeing stories with a little kernel of truth getting exaggerated almost beyond recognition in the Mail, with a less clear and more exaggerated version in the Express. I wasn't really surprised today when I decided to take apart a Mail story, but found a less honest version in the Express. It's what the Express has been for since it started trying to out hate the Mail and became Der Sturmer. It's more unusual to see a less honest version of a story than the Mail in the Telegraph. It's usually the Telegraph that covers those details the other two papers leave out when they want to mislead their readers. Maybe it's because the Mail's version didn't appear online until after 11 this morning, and probably didn't make the print version. Who knows.

Whatever the reason, the story is 'Schools to "ban" pupils wearing crosses' in the Mail, 'Outrage over new ban on the cross' in Der Sturmer and 'School ban for crosses but not Muslim lockets' in the Telegraph.




As usual, nothing's been banned. Private Eye says that any question in a tabloid headline usually has the answer 'no'. A new rule I've learned since starting this blog is that when a paper says something has been banned, it's a good bet nothing has. We can find that out by looking in the local paper (which happns a lot) and the article 'Council cross over claims of a crucifix ban'. It says:

However, the council claims the reports were inaccurate and said headteachers had not been told to ban religious symbols.

Surprise, surprise.

According to the local paper article, this is what happened. The Council released a draft set of guidelines to school governing bodies. So nothing was published, and nothing was sent to school headteachers. The document didn't mention Christian symbols because, according to Councillor Maria Gatland:

we are living in a Christian country and on the whole headteachers know about Christian traditions, not least because school holidays are built around them.

"The draft guidelines are intended to help them with their knowledge of other faiths and in particular how they should relate to sports and PE.

"There is absolutely nothing prescriptive in the guidelines, which have been drawn up in the manner of questions and answers.

And just to reiterate:

Croydon Council would not entertain banning the wearing of religious symbols.

So, on to the dodgy papers.

The Mail's version is an outstanding example of the 'Withdrawn!' tactic, withdrawing the headline's claim in the first two sentences:

Schools could be forced to ban their pupils from wearing crosses - while allowing them to display symbols of non-Christian religions.

The rules being considered by one education authority would see jewellery forbidden from PE lessons, apart from in "exceptional circumstances".

Check out the 'could' and 'being considered', and in the next sentence, there's an 'apparently'. It's still a misleading article though. If you didn't aleady know nothing had been banned, you wouldn't be any the wiser from reading this, but all the tentative language shows that whoever wrote the article knew nothing had been banned. Didn't stop them from going with the word in the headline though, even if they did use scare quotes. One thing this article has in common with the other two is that it leaves the most important piece of information - that the document is only a draft - until right at the end.

The Express is also sort of an example of the 'Withdrawn!' tactic, but doesn't withdraw its claim of a ban completely, and doesn't even try until way, way late in the article. Unlike the Mail version, it just bloody lies in its opening. Not a surprise, eh? It says:

The officials have told headteachers to ban jewellery [...]

But we know nobody's told headteachers aything. There are some lame quotes that illustrate what I said in '"This is outrageous!" says Tarquin FitzTory'. Someone with a vested interest, a Tory MP and someone from the Campaign for Gullible Marks Against Political Correctness.

The Telegraph version, which seems to be the one the other two were based on, opens with a big fat fib:

Schools have been told that they should ban crosses and crucifixes, but allow Muslim children to wear symbols, even though they are not compulsory.

Schools haven't been told anything. A draft set of guidelines sent to governors said something about other religious symbols, but nothing about crosses. We get the same person with a vested ineterst and the same Tory MP quoted. It saves it's withdrawal until right at the end, when it decides to make it look as though the Council's claim about the document being a draft is a lie.

It's so easy to see what's really happened here. Someone left out Christian symbols from the list because they assumed the headteachers would already be familiar with them, they got picked up and that's it. Someone cocked up, that's all. It wasn't even the final draft of the document and it hadn't been published. And catching this kind of mistake is exactly the reason why a draft was sent out in the first place.

What else to the 'it's Political Correctness Gone Mad' brigade actually think? That evil lefties are so unsure of their own position that whenever they're challenged they change their mind and pretend their reasoning was different all along? Do they imagine donkey jacketed Council officials shuffling shiftily in front of a whiteboard saying, 'Oh, of course we didn't ban chocolate fingers for being racist. We just think it would be dangerous to jam them down children's throats with a plunger,' as they try to cover the words 'CHOCOLATE FINGERS=RACIST'?

*UPDATE* Since this story appeared, the PCC made one of its rare decent decisions and found that the Express version, at least, is misleading. The paper had to publish a lame correction, apparently. Hurrah!