Swallowed by the Daily Express

Apolgoies for the absence from blogging. After insisting I'd had enough of the Express and the goons in its 'Have Your Say' section, I seem to have become taken over by the urge to bang out replies to some of the articles, like a nutter on a bus - which is entirely in keeping with the reason for this blog's existence. It's meant I haven't been able to post here much, but to be honest, the fun was going out of taking tabloid stories apart anyway. Maybe I'll rediscover my enthusiam later.

Still, I have to admit to finding the whole experience of trying to engage the people there incredibly strange. I've read lots of debate with right-wing loons, and I've engaged in the odd real life discussion, but never to any great depth. I'm not a veteran of getting into tussles with people in their blogs' comments. The closest I've come is in the sometimes surreal discussion it's possible to have with evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. The same deliberate ignoring of arguments is there. The same insistence on arguing against what the person would like to have been said rather than what actually has been said is there. A similar number of logical fallacies are thrown around too, especially the trusty ad-hominem and strawman. (Sounds like the makings of a decent Comic-Book, that). The creation of a weird fantasy world pops up as well.

I can't help but be interested by this. Especially since I started this blog as a kind of space for me to say what I would to tabloid readers if I had the chance.

Of course, I don't actually think I'll change any of the regular posters' minds. Maybe the odd person who stumbles across an article who hasn't made their mind up, but more likely nobody at all. That's not really the point though. It's interesting to see the reaction of people to being told that a story they've just posted an outraged comment about is distorted, or even a lie. Or, at least I thought it would be before I found out that it normally amounts to calling someone a PC idiot and refusing to engage with anything they say, or even read what they've written at all. Exactly like your fundamentalist who wants to know why you're so angry at god.

There have been a couple of highlights though. Steveg has been particularly good value in introducing the techniques of the playground to discussions, refusing first to actually address any of my points because 'they bored him', through calling me names and pointing out how sad and lonely I am to finally telling people not to agree with me because I hadn't addressed the point they'd made once. When in fact I had. Takes you back, eh?

Beyond that, I (among others) managed to get the Online Editor to chip into the discussion on 'Is Islam taking over Europe' after pointing out the shonky propaganda technique of illustrating so many articles on a similar theme with a veiled woman - and using one lit from the bottom like a scary horror film monster in this one.

Bizarrely, he argued that he had originally thought using that picture might:

fuel hatred, distrust and narrow-minded suspicion of Muslims.

He was then won over by the contrary argument that:

that within the context of Georg Gaenswein's warning of "European identity" being at risk from Islam, we needed a strong image - immediately recognisable as Muslim and associated with the loss of identity - to illustrate his, admittedly controversial, point.

So, he decided that it was okay to use the picture even though it might fuel hatred and stuff because it also illustrated European identity being at risk from Islam. Get your head around that one. The reason why the picture might cause hatred and mistrust is the argument that shows why using it is okay. Brainaches!

Of course, this is just the Online Editor showing that he's used a picture that conveys the negative view on purpose. But we knew that anyway.

Another great bit from that discussion is Maggie asking if her comment wasn't PC enough to be printed in a discussion thread where people have called Muslims 'vermin', 'terrorists and scrounging scumbags', say 'Definitely NO NO NO it is not taking over Europe.
IT IS TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD AND FAST' and argue that 'When they walk down our streets they should be shown they are not welcome even if it means us showing our feelings of revulsion'.

Makes you wonder what Maggie must have said if it really wasn't PC enough.

Finally, probably the most bizarre thing is the sight of steveg (again) using the familiar old Islamophibic construct of resisting Muslims being the same as resisting the Nazis:

An example of this scenario happened in Germany before the war. The majority of Germans were decent ordinary people, just like the British at the time. The problem was, when Hitler and the Nazis rose to power and carried out many atrocities to get there, most of the German public remained silent.
[...]
The fact is, these so called silent majority, are repeating how the German population reacted before the war when the Nazi extremist carried out their reign of terror.
Surprisingly, we now have a so called Muslim extremist reign of terror, yet the majority of Muslims remain silent!

This is in a thread on an article using similar propaganda techniques to demonise Muslims that the Nazi press used to demonise Jews (although the Nazi press were far more up front and less subtle, it must be said). Oh the irony!

Anyway, that's where I've been. My last post there is on an article about a poll that shows the majority of British Asians feel British, which uses the headline 'We don't feel British, say Asians'. I realised after posting that that it's the sort of thing I'd usually post here, and the blog is languishing with only my last not-half-as-good-as-I-intended-it-to-be post up top, so I'll endeavour to look at the other papers now.

Cheers!

Campaign of hate

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. - Garth S. Jowett, Victoria O'Donnell - Propaganda and Persuasion.

This is just the latest in a very long line of anti-Muslim headlines in the Express. Like many of the others, its worthiness of a front page scream headline is dubious, and like most (if not all) of the others, it uses dodgy techniques to further demonise Muslims.

Before I go any further, I should probably point out that the twats who were sent down should have been sent down. Incitement to murder - it's not big, and it's not clever. I'm not defending those buffons, nor am I defending the goons in the picture.

What I do want to do is quickly point out the shoddy techniques the Express uses here. Firstly, note the use of the term 'these Muslims'. That could mean one of two things - these Muslims here in this article, or Muslims generally. Three guesses as to which one the Express expects its readers to go away with, and three more as to which one it'll pretend it's using if there are any complaints.

Next, there's the use of 'our hospitality'. These Muslims are not us. And 'we're' offering hospitality. Muslims are somehow receiving hospitality from the paper that does little but smear and lie about them. They should be grateful for that, apparently. The article goes further, acting incredulous that 'these Muslims' should have "poured scorn on the nation that guarantees their freedoms," as if this paper doesn't lament the fact that their freedoms are granted every sodding week. And as if it's impossible that any of these people are actually citizens protesting about the running of their own country.

The article uses the old familiar dehumanising techniques - they're 'swarming' apparently.

Is this really worthy of a front page? Sure, the story's newsworthy - but a front page? Forty people at a demonstration? A number that represents a quarter of one hundredth of one percent of the Muslim population of the UK? A number that represents a fraction of the number of Muslims who support the police enough to actually be police officers? (There are an estimated 300 Muslim police officers in the UK. More than seven times the number of protesters here).

Dodgy headlines and negative articles

Back in October 2006, the paper kicked off a campaign to ban the veil. Taking 6 October 2006 as an arbitrary starting point, there have been at least 22 Express front pages with negative headlines about Muslims (there are 21 on MailWatch. Since the collection is incomplete, there could well be more).

Of those, two are just calls to ban the veil, and five are about the failed attacks of a few weeks ago, and one deals with the shonky claims about the plot to behead a Muslim soldier. That leaves thirteen negative stories about Muslims. All but one of those thirteen are false, or head misleading articles.

Over the same time period, there are around 109 articles that show up in a search for the word 'Muslim' on the Express website. Of those, about 11 are either positive or neutral. That leaves 98 negative articles about Muslims, including the 21 that made the front page.

Here are three randomly chosen front page ones:

16 October 2006: 'The veil is banned in hospitals'. Not true. One medical school had stopped female students from wearing veils when they had contact with patients.

30 November 2006: 'Muslim law reaches Britain'. Not true. Some cases can be arbitrated outside court if both parties agree to be bound by the decision of a third party. While this article was about the case of some teenagers who'd attacked another kid and had been ordered to pay compensation by the arbitrator (after the kid didn't press charges officially), it included gems like, "The hardline Islamic law allows people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated." In Britain? Me arse it does!

7 May 2007: 'At last the veil banned in class'. Not true. Lord Falconer said headteachers could stop pupils wearing veils if they wanted. That's all.

The headlines tend to fall into two broad categories - ones that are designed to rally support for banning veils, commonly employing the 'bandwagon' propaganda technique, pretending loads and loads of people want it - and ones that are designed to highlight the supposed liberties they're taking and extra consideration Muslims want.

Some of the articles themselves go on to withdraw the nonsense statement of the headline, like the three above. Others go on to further demonise and distort in the body of the article. The front page of the arbitrarily chosen start date, 6 October 2006, is 'Riots over Mosque on Queen's doorstep'. It covers the same story I examined the Sun and Mail coverage of in 'Firebobmed Muslims 'asking for it''.

At the time, I was hacked off because the Mail had seemed to take a case of Muslims being attacked and twist it until the Muslims were the attackers. I wouldn't have been as hacked off if I'd seen the Express coverage at that point. It opens describing the clashes as happening between 'race hate thugs', depicting the people the Sun had regarded as victims as race hate thugs from the outset. The Mail at least left things ambiguous, and only implid things to make readers draw their own conclusions.

The Mail completely uncritically quotes locals who claimed that three young men had been attacked, by men coming out of the prayer room with pitchforks, baseball bats and iron bars, 'Whether [...] provoked or not I don't know.' This was after reporting:

There was an altercation between a teenage boy and dairy staff during prayers. It escalated and the windows of several vehicles were smashed.

Amid claims that the boy, his mother and teenage sister were assaulted, up to 50 young people clashed on Tuesday night.

That was bad enough. But note the qualifiers in there. It's only 'claimed' that the mother and daughter were attacked. The claim that the attacks might have been unprovoked are attributed to a witness, and not in the words pf the paper. There's doubt in the Mail's version, even if it is minimised.

Here's how the Express covered the same incident:

The outbreak of disorder began after a mother and her daughter were set upon by a gang of 20 Asian youths armed with baseball bats, iron bars and pitchforks.

The shaven-headed thugs – all dressed in white robes – launched the attack after pouring out of a former office building which is being used as an unofficial mosque.

They attacked Karen Hayes, 46, and her 18-year-old daughter Emily before turning their weapons on the teenager's car. The pair had gone to help after Karen's 15-year-old son Sean and a friend were beaten up by the gang. Police have said it is unlikely the mob will be brought to justice.

Never thought you'd ever see the day when Daily Mail coverage of anything seemed balanced, eh?

Another of the Express distortions I covered at the time was 'Surge in Muslim youth who want Islamic rule', which I looked at in 'Eat your greens or MULTICULTURALISM will get you'. Quote from my post:

The Express article probably warrants most scrutiny. The second sentence includes an outright lie. It says:

"Three-quarters of Muslims aged 16-24 believe women should be forced to wear veils or headscarves [...]"

The study does not say that at all. It says:

"74% of 16-24 year olds would prefer Muslim women to choose to wear the veil, compared to only 28% of 55+ year olds."

Spot the difference. 'Would prefer someone to choose' is not the same as 'should be forced'. Before I met my girlfriend, I would have preferred the women I fancied to choose to sleep with me. I didn't want them to be forced to. That's the difference between an ordinary bloke and a rapist. Plus, the study specifies 'Muslim women' and the Express does not.

Also notable is 'Now Muslims tell us how to run our schools', which prompted me to complain to the PCC. The Muslim Council of Britain complained at the time too, and although the PCC agreed that the article was misleading, it ruled only that the MCB should have a letter published, which it declined.

When I complained, the article's online version was headlined 'Muslims: Ban un-Islamic schools'. One of the elements of my complaint was that the MCB report the article was supposed to be about didn't actually say anything about un-Islamic schools, let alone that they should be banned.

I also complained that the term 'un-Islamic schools' could be misleading, and lead people to believe the MCB wanted to ban non-Islamic schools. Since my complaint (not sure if it's since the PCC's ruling) a second version of the article has appeared on the Express website, which I've just discovered. The headline? 'Muslims: ban non-Islamic schools'.

There's also a quote box directly attributing a quote to the MCB that didn't appear anywhere in their report at all. It says '"Swimming should be banned during Ramadan" - Muslim Council of Britain.' One of the specific complaints of the MCB is that the article erroneously gave the impression that they wanted to ban swimming. Now there's a new online version of the article with that specifically in a quote box.

Special treatment of Muslim symbols

Muslims also appear in a subcategory of articles that has appeared in pretty much all the tabloids recently - stories about how Christian symbols have been 'banned' while Muslim scarves are allowed. There are three notable recent cases - the Nadia Ewedia case, in which she was allowed to wear a cross, but had to cover it - one where schools had 'banned' crosses, in which crosses hadn't been banned but left out of Council literature explaining what religious symbols were since the Council assumed headteachers would know what crosses were - and the recent 'silver ring thing' flap, in which rings were disallowed jewellery in a school because they're not recognised Christian symbols. Crosses were permitted, however. A scarf isn't even jewellery and wouldn't have been included in the same rules anyway.

Pictures of Muslims in negative articles not about Muslims

Muslims pop up in stories that aren't about Muslims or religion at all. The Express has a habit of using their pictures in other negative articles too. Who said the paper wasn't inclusive!

Back in the article where the Express slipped over into racism, 'Ethnic baby boom 'crisis'', the paper exaggerated the content of a Council report, pretending it had characterised a large number of ethnic minority births as a crisis, and pretending it said that there were racial tensions about to bubble over into full scale rioting in Sheffield at any minute. It said nothing of the sort. The paper also used a picture of people in a niqab (that looks decidedly dodgy, as if the paper used a couple of staffers in the car park) to illustrate the article.

Another article from around the same time 'Is the scale of immigration changing Britain for the worse?' (as if the conclusion to that question wasn't foregone) is illustrated by the familiar 'two fingered salute' picture of veiled Muslims.

The article 'Schools where children don't speak English' lied about the number of Britain's biggest cities had over half of their school pupils speaking English as a second language (Express says 'many', real figures say 'none'). It also used a picture of veiled Muslim girls to illustrate it. Muslim girls facing away from the camera, so you can't see their faces.

Results

The campaign is working too. Check out the responses to the article I opened by talking about.

"All, the BNP have done so far is break a few sculls unlike your Muslim brothers who have already signalled their deadly intent, as we know to our cost."

"my sons a copper why the hell should they have to put with the shit these people seem to dish at us in our own country bring in BNP and i think alot of these silly bastards will take a hike we dont want you. get it through its an enlish country and Christian not muslim"

This is ENLAND goddammit! We're ENLISH!

"Muslims are growing in strength both in Britain and throughout the whole of the Christian world, and as they grow they are becoming more defiant, agressive and demanding. They are a clever (crafty) and deceitful race who on the one hand are constantly protesting that all Islamic people are both peaceful, loving, law abiding peoples but on the other hand are preparing to stab us all in the back!"

One of the things I mentioned in my complaint to the PCC is that this kind of article can whip up negative feeling in two very violent minorities. Violent extremist Muslims on the one hand, and far right nutters on the other. Exaggerating how much British society in general marginalises and vilifies Muslims on the one hand, and demonising Muslims as 'race hate thugs' to the other race hate thugs on the other.

Here's the question. Is the Express deliberately trying to disseminate this kind of hate, or is it merely pandering to it to make money? What behaviour is the paper trying to illicit with its campaign? Hatred of Muslims, or just the urge to buy the paper in people who already hate them?

Either way, it's a despicable, hate filled bogroll of a paper.

Daily Express being dishonest? Surely not!

I really am fed up with this sodding paper and it's 'Have Your Say' goons. But there's still an inaccurate caption under the picture in the 'Muslim juror 'wore MP3 player' under hijab', although it's been a while since I was assured that people were looking into removing it.

At first, I thought it was because the editors were waiting until the story disappeared from the links on the front page, so that few peope would see the corrected version and their job would be done. There might be another explanation though.

'Should we ban the veil?' asks the paper today. Again. Ooh, the Daily Express asking its readers whether the veil should be banned - wonder what the answer might be? Just to make sure it remains neutral and doesn't influence its readers, it uses this picture to illustrate the story:

What could be more British than sticking two fingers up at someone who pisses you off?

The thing is, the story leading to the question is the one about the MP3 player in court. Anyone searching for more on the story will find the previous article, with the dodgy picture and caption. Handy.

If you're annoyed about the idea of a juror listening to am MP3 player in court, surely the more sensible question would be 'Should we ban MP3 players from being taken into courtrooms?'. That the Express doesn't ask this question shows where the paper's priorities lie.

To be fair to the paper though, the text of this article is more accurate, using the word 'headscarf' to describe it. Oh, and 'headdress'. Who wears headdresses? That'll be savages, won't it?

Although it doesn't outright say the juror was wearing a hijab like the ones in the picture this time, the connection is still created. Just not as blatantly and dishonestly. The caption is 'OBSTINATE: But is the veil out of control?'. How can a piece of cloth be out of control? Are we talking about something out of a Stephen King story here? Jesus wept. And that's not pushing the reader toward one side of the argument is it?

The cavalcade of dribbling goons has started - although one or two from the discussion with me haven't turned up yet. It would be great if it was because they realised their arguments were rubbish - but it's probably because they haven't got around to it yet.

I'm going to be Mystic Crackers now - and predict the outcome of the whole 'looking into changing the picture' thing. One of two things will happen:

• Nothing. The picture and caption will stay as they are.
• The caption will change to remove the 'like this one' bit. There will still be a picture of a niqab.

I will be very surprised indeed if the picture is changed to something more accurate. Mind you, I'm surprised that the paper's left the discussion up showing me handing some of its' readers' arses to them and pointing out that the paper's lying. So you never know.

*UPDATE* Over six months later and the picture's still there. Surprised?

Outright lying in the Daily Express UPDATED AGAIN

Okay, okay - I know I said my next post would be about something other than the Express and the goons in its comments section, but I can't ignore this.

The story is 'Muslim juror 'wore MP3 player' under hijab'. Can't argue with the tabloids for running with this story. It's a breathtaking example of contempt of court. Although it seems her behaviour is connected more with being an immature idiot than being a Muslim.

What you can argue with is bald faced lying. Pun definitely intended. Shut up. Here's the picture and caption used to illustrate the story:



First of all, the veil in the picture is not a hijab. *Clarification - the veil in the picture is a form of hijab - but not what people commonly refer to when they use the term 'hijab'. My bad.* Secondly, the juror did not wear a full faced veil at all. Again, here's another right wing paper's version of the story, the Mail's 'Facing jail, juror whose hijab hid an MP3 player'. Look at the picture:



See the hijab? See the juror's face?

I really don't know how the paper would try to get out of this one, but you can bet your arse it will try, and probably succeed. Only thing I can think of is that it says this:

The woman, who was wearing a hijab, a figure-hugging black-and-white dress and jeans, was then led into court to be told the decision.

But given it actually shows a picture of a niqab and explicitly states that the juror wore a veil like the full-faced one in the picture, it can't use the old 'Withdrawn!' technique. I'm guessing the defence will be that it's a mistake. Which is bollocks, frankly. This is clearly an attempt to slot this story into the paper's campaign to ban the niqab, with shameless, shameless lying.

See it work on the goons in the comments. Except me, obviously.

*UPDATE* Managed to get to the shop to have a look at the paper edition, and the niqab picture isn't there. That means it's more likely to be a mistake, but since I first posted on the comments section about it hours ago and someone must have approved the comment, and the picture is still there, I'm not so sure. Just about to fire off a comment to the online editor, so we'll see what happens.

*ANOTHER UPDATE* Didn't hear a dickie bird from the online editor and the picture's still there as of 11pm on 10 July. There's been a bit of a tear up in the comments if you're interested. Nothing I can't handle. You'll have to wade through nastiness like 'Get these muslim slags out of my country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!', but you might be interested.

*YET ANOTHER UPDATE* Got a reply from the online editor yesterday but missed it. Apparently, the editorial staff are 'looking into removing it'. Whether that's out of the kindness of their hearts or because I've banged on about it over and over again in the comments we'll never know. Photo and caption are still there though, as of 12pm on 12 July. The 'debate' with the cavalcade of screaming goons goes on.

Funny how I get an assurance that the photo might be removed after the link from the front page disappeared too.

*PROBABLY THE FINAL UPDATE* Picture and caption still there as of 10pm on 12 July. 'Debate' seems to have finished now, but I feel a bit like I just cracked a nut with a steamroller. Still, it was a frothing, BNP supporting bigot of a nut, so fuck it.

*DEFINITELY THE FINAL UPDATE* It's now over six months later, and despite assurances that the editorial team would look into removing the lying picture, it's still there.

Spot the difference

Two right wing papers reported on the same thing last week, with less than identical approaches, and less than identical outcomes.

On 3 July, a statement by Ed Balls was announced that introduced new restrictions on benefit payments to families of terrorist suspects, with measures to ensure that none of the money ended up transferred to the suspects themselves. The Hansard record of that is here, and you can see exactly what the statement said.

The Mail doesn't seem to have covered the story and neither does the Sun (although they might have and I haven't managed to find it using the search engines), but the Telegraph and the Express both did. Let's see if you can guess which headline goes with which paper. No cheating and following the links first. Ready? Here goes:

'Benefits stopped to 'al-Qaeda' families'
'Fury as state benefits go to suspects on UN terror list'

Like you needed to cheat anyway! The Express one even starts with the word 'fury' and drops some very important information, for flip's sake! What other clues do you need?

Now, this isn't a case of two papers from opposite ends of the political spectrum putting their own unique spin on things. Both are right wing, but one has more of a commitment to telling what actually happens (despite stories like the infamous 'hot cross buns' story).

I don't think I need to go through the Express article point by point this time - but briefly:

• The headline and opening sentences omit the fact that benefits are paid to family members of the suspects, not directly to the suspects themselves.

• The largest bit of fudging in the article is this:

• Under the rules, a suspect’s wife can claim benefits only under a special licence. The Government admits that household finances are “generally pooled” and that any family income is likely to be available to the terrorist suspect. But, it says, safeguards will prevent the money being misspent.

Which is incredibly disingenuous. The paragraph is constructed to make it look as though the Government has admitted that suspects' families 'generally pool' their money under the existing rules (the ones Ed Balls announced a week ago that the paper ignores as if they don't exist), but they don't do that at all. The current rules have been introduced precisely to stop that happening. It's like accusing someone with a broken arm of not bothering to get it in plaster because you've got a picture of them getting the plaster put on.

It's possible to guess the Express's reason for reporting things in this way. The one thing the Express includes that doesn't appear anywhere else is a set of figures for how much is being paid to these families, which the paper claims is £64,800 between four families. Now, we don't know how many mouths this enormous sum is supposed to be feeding, but that would make £16,200 per year per family, which is well below the average national income. And the people involved are only suspects.

It isn't clear whether this figure refers to the amount the families were receiving before their Child Benefit and tax credits were suspended, the interim figure the Government are paying the families while it waits for a decision from the UN over paying them a basic allowance covering the cost of living, or what. It's unlikely to be the final amount they'll be expected to end up paying, but we don't know. I suspect it's the former.

The reason I suspect that is that the paper has deliberately fudged it's reporting of the new restrictions. If this were the sum being paid after they were introduced, I doubt the paper wouldn't make more of the fact - along the lines of saying 'Fury as new Government 'restrictions' pay £65,000 a year to terror suspects'. Since the paper pretends the restrictions don't exist at all, I think it'd be a safe bet that the figure they have is for how much the families were receiving.

Still, one point in the paper's favour is that it allows dissenting comments on the 'Have Your Say' section, so it allowed that one comment through from me. Got it in a bit late though, so it's doubtful it will make any difference.

In happier news, the Express is in trouble with the PCC. The story's behind a subscription wall, so here's the jist:

The Daily Express has been forced to publish a second apology for an inaccurate story after burying its original apology.

Today the paper ran an apology on page nine after printing an apology on page 33 of a previous edition of the paper, a move that angered the Press Complaints Commission.

The PCC deemed the Express's first apology, about a story concerning a council changing its Christian prayers, inadequate.

Although this fills me with glee, I can't help but wonder what the difference is between the Mayor's complaint here and the MCB's complaint from earlier this year.

And you can still read the nonsense article online. I haven't been able to find an apology anywhere there.

I'm fed up with this paper and the goons in its comments. I think my next post will be about something else.

Is it racist? We're there!

The Daily Express, that is. 'Terror search fiasco', said yesterday's edition, and:

POLICE chiefs were last night under intense pressure to use racial profiling in the battle to prevent ­further terror strikes.

Hurrah! The tabloid practice of pretending that something they're doing is in fact something general that's happening and they're only reporting on it. Who's putting police chiefs under intense pressure? The Express! I should really produce a cut out and keep Tabloid Bingo card. I will, if I can ever be arsed.

Anyway, here's why the Express says it wants racial profiling to be introduced:

All the suspects in the latest failed attacks are young adults of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. But officers carrying out spot checks at key sites have been told not to target people based on their ethnicity or age.

You'd think the flaming fucking car would tip the police off more than the fact that the drivers were brown, wouldn't you? Jesus wept, this is dumb headed.

The last couple of failed attacks were done by 'young adults of Asian or Middle Eastern descent'. But what about the last successful ones? Let's look at the last five. What joy!

• January-February 2007. Letter bomb campaign. Perpetrator - Miles Cooper. White dude.
• 7 July 2007. London bombs. Three perpetrators of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. One of Afro Carribean descent. Whoopsie! I think you just let a terrorist through.
• 3 August 2001. Last Real IRA bomb in London. Almost certainly white dudes to a man. Very white dudes.
• 6 May 2001. Another Real IRA attack. See above.
• 4 March 2001. Real IRA again.
  

Okay, you might argue that since the peace process in Northern Ireland, we're unlikely to see any Irish Republican attacks again. So what was the last successful bombing campaign before the 4 March 2001 attack?

• 17 - 30 April 1999. Nail bombings across London. Perpetrator - David Copeland. White dude and far-right extremist nutter. Bizarrely not counted as terrorism. Mattered little to his victims.

The Express also says:

It means searches are unfocused, with even elderly white couples being stopped. The policy has led to accusations that police bosses are more worried about upsetting minority groups than protecting the country.

There it goes again! 'Accusations that the police are worried'? Yeah. Accusations made by the Express.

Still, the paper's main point here is that even elderly white couples are searched. Elderly white people can't be terrorists, right? Maybe not. From yesterday's Guardian, 'BNP men planned bombs for "race war"':

Two British National party members plotted to make bombs in readiness for a "civil war between races", a court was told yesterday. [...]

However, the hoard amassed by Robert Cottage, 49, of Colne, Lancashire, came to light when his wife told her social worker she was scared that Cottage and 62-year-old David Jackson were planning to test chemical weapons in the local countryside.

62 years old. Pretty elderly. Qualifies for a bus pass in London. Oh, and white too.

That this story gets no wide coverage in the national press is nothing short of disgraceful. We've had tons of screaming headlines for days covering arrests of alleged Muslim terrorists who end up having nothing. Here we have a couple of white dudes who actually possess what's been described as the largest haul of explosive chemicals ever found in a UK home, and they're not even arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There's more on this at Empire Burlesque.

That aside, here we have more examples of people who would be missed if the police used racial profiling and never checked elderly white people. Doesn't matter that they're not officially described as terrorists. I doubt their victims would care, had they managed to set off any bombs.

Next:

One frustrated officer last night said: "In these extreme circumstances the rules need to be changed because otherwise we are wasting our resources."

Which officer? Did the Express make him up, or are they just a numpty? There's more from him to come:

He said: "You can only stop a percentage of cars at any one time and once the cars have slowed down to a point where you can see the occupants it would make sense for us to be able to use profiling and stop people based on appearance.

"At the moment we are stopping middle class, white pensioners and while we are searching their vehicle another car with four men of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance goes sailing past towards the airport and we have missed them."

The car that got to Glasgow airport was on fire, for fuck's sake. Do you really need to stop and search a car that's on fire to check if something's wrong? Do you let flaming cars past that are driven by elderly middle class white couples? And as for the middle class, elderly bit - David Jackson is also a dentist. I'm guessing the mystery officer would have done nothing more for him than offer him a light. Except he wouldn't need one if he was driving a flaming car.

More:

Tory MP Philip Davies said: "I agree with him completely. It makes my blood boil. In a nutshell, what police officers are being told is put political correctness above the security of people in this country."

Tory MP Philip Davies would have his own square on the Tabloid Bingo card. Twat.

And still more:

Alan Gordon, vice-chairman of the Police Federation which represents rank and file officers, said: "I have supported the idea of profiling. It seems absolute common sense. [...]

"Some will say it is racist and that the terrorists may well decide to change their profile to overcome that. But it seems ludicrous that we are not allowed to use profiling to target the common risk in this "current climate."

Always, always, always question anything ever that would seem 'absolute common sense'. Always. It's absolute common sense that the world is flat. Anyway, why is it ludicrous? Why? If all an Asian or Middle Eastern terrorist needs to do to get past security is to slap on a bit of make-up and a blonde wig, why is it ludicrous to say that profiling is rubbish because terrorists will change their profile? If you'd been using your profiling, one of the July 7 attackers would have been missed. Providing you hadn't stopped him to see if he'd nicked his car, what with being black and everything.

And more from Officer Numpty:

"We are stopping people we know could not possibly be linked to terrorism but once we have waved their car down we have to treat them according to the rules. That means interviews, searching the car, examining luggage. That can take up to 30 minutes and then there is 30 minutes of paperwork as well.

How do you know the people could not possibly be linked to terrorism? Four words. David Jackson, 62, dentist.

The last word of this article is given over to something sensible, but this is masterful use of the 'Withdrawn!' tactic. The paper has already told us what to think about racial profiling before we get to the reasons why its rubbish.

And rubbish it is. But I'd like to reiterate why and add a couple of things.

1. Not all potential terrorists are of Middle Eastern or Asian descent. One of the 7/7 bombers even wasn't.
2. It's relatively easy for someone of Middle Eastern or Asian descent to change their appearance.
3. It wouldn't be in the realms of impossibility for terrorists to change their MO if they're sure they'll be stopped.
4. St Paul's riots. Bristol, 1980.
5. Brixton riots. London, 1981.
6. Toxteth riots. Liverpool, 1981.

Strawman buster - I am not saying that racial profiling will lead to rioting. I am saying that racial profiling will lead to further feelings of alienation among the section of the population that some terrorist organisations recruit from, which is a bad thing. I am also saying that strains within different sections of the Asian population may also be stretched if every Asian Sikh, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Christian or Atheist is stopped because the police think they might be a Muslim terrorist. Or South American electricians. This will also further alienate the group of people terrorists recruit from. Given that the terrorist recruiters actually target that feeling of alienation and persecution to win converts to their cause, do you think that exacerbating it is wise?

But still - it's something nasty to do to brown people. What can the Express do but support it?

Tabloid Groundhog Day *UPDATE*

When I posted 'Tabloid Groundhog Day', I had requested the study from the DfES that the Express claimed showed that:

HALF of all schoolchildren in many of Britain’s biggest cities do not speak English as their first language, an alarming report has revealed.

I didn't get a reply for a while, but I just got one pointing me to the actual figures by city. So how many of Britain's biggest cities have half of all schoolchildren speaking English as a second language?

None.

To find anywhere with a total of 50% or more pupils speaking English as a second language, you have to split London into component parts. If you split it into just Inner London and Outer London, you get one city with more than 50% speaking English as a second language - Inner London. If you split it into boroughs, you get 7 Inner London and 4 Outer London boroughs, out of a total of 33. But individual London boroughs do not qualify as Britain's biggest cities. London's overall average is 38%. (32% for Outer and 52% for Inner). England's total is 12%. So when the paper said 'many of Britain's biggest cities' it wasn't telling the truth. It meant 'some parts of Britain's biggest city', which is exactly what I thought.

Even if we're generous and count cities with over 40% as having half speaking English as a second language, we get only two - Leicester and Slough. We get another 6 London boroughs, but they don't change London's overall 38% level. In short, the only way you'd ever get more than one of Britain's biggest cities with half its pupils speaking English as a second language is if you cheat, and you'd kind of have to cheat to get that one.

So, the Express tell fibs again. Any surprises?

More soaraway propaganda

Just over a year ago, I made my first foray into the pages of the Sun, since a headline I'd seen on the front of someone else's copy on the tube had me involuntarily stuffing my tongue behind my bottom lip and fighting the urge to make decidedly un-PC noises toward the paper's reader.

The headline was 'UP YOURS', and I covered the story it referred to in 'Super soaraway ARSEPAPER!' - a headline of mine that went on to spawn many embarrassing variations. The jist of the Sun article was that PC killjoys want to stop people flying the St George Cross during the World Cup so as not to offend Muslims. It followed the familiar Sun template of saying that something is being done for one reason, providing examples of people doing it for other reasons, and claiming them as evidence that people are doing things for their original reason. None of the people in the article had actually been banned from flying the flag because of Muslims. The paper followed that up with it's brain-rottingly stupid 'Kick 'em in the baubles campaign', which was another attempt to get people to do what they'd be doing anyway by pretending PC killjoys wanted to stop them. It used the same blame template too.

Today, there's an eerily similar headline. 'FLY IT IN THE FACE OF TERROR' is superimposed over a picture of the Union Flag, and the headline of the online version of the story is 'PM: Fly flag on every building'.

Both headlines are utter rubbish. They're big pants with cack in them. Fly the flag in the face of terror? Never mind that terror is an abstract noun - does the Sun think that last weekend's Keystone Terrorists targeted Tiger Tiger and Glasgow airport because they were the last two buildings in the UK flying Union Flags? Or the last two not flying them? Maybe I've got it all wrong and the paper's just got its Terrys and Trevors mixed up. I dunno.

Still, what kind of rubbish nonsense is that? What could flying a Union Jack possibly do either way to 'terror'? What are terrorists supposed to do, give up because they see some bits of magic cloth? The tabloids seem to love attributing supernatural status to material, but does the paper really imagine terror cells dropping to their knees and repenting because some shovel headed goons have sent off to the Sun for a piece of crap they can attach to their windows? Actually, no. The call to fly the flag serves a definite purpose that has bog all to do with terrorism, but I'll get back to that in a bit.

The second headline, 'PM: Fly flag on every building' is also nonsense - despite being a better illustration of Charlie Brooker's point that Sun headlines sound like Red Injun speech from old westerns. It's followed up by this opening sentence:

GORDON Brown last night staged a show of defiance against terrorist killers by ordering ALL government buildings to hoist the British flag. [Emphasis most definitely not mine]

No he didn't. This is just made up nonsense. We get a clue as to where the paper gets this ridiculous idea a bit later, when it says:

In a document titled The Governance of Britain, he told MPs [yadda yadda yadda]

Here's 'The Governance of Britain'. To save you the trouble of looking through it, I'll tell you that it doesn't mention terror, terrorism or terrorists in connection with flying the Union Flag. Nor does it order ALL government buildings to hoist the British flag. It says instead that the PM will consult over the possibility of relaxing restrictions so that government buildings will be able to fly the flag every day if the people inside them want to. But not in Northern Ireland.

I won't make too much mention of the extensive use of crap photoshop mock-ups of what buildings might look like if they had ridiculously out of proportion flags hanging from them that the paper includes because the it knows its readers are too thick to work it out for themselves. I'm busy trying to erase them from my memory. Still, look at the size of the ones hanging from the Blackpool Tower and Edinburgh Castle. How the fuck would there ever be strong enough winds to make monsters like that wave? Or flagpoles strong enough to hold them for very long if they did? Spacks.

Now, I promised a reason for why the Sun's banging on about waving the flag (again) and here it is. Drumroll please. It's for propaganda purposes. It shouldn't take a genius to work that out. There's even a specific category of propaganda referred to as Flag Waving - although it's usually a bit more subtle than this. Here's the Wikipedia definition of Flag Waving:

An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

Most examples of flag waving are not as literal as this, with the use patriotic language or other symbolism to imply that opponents are actually being unpatriotic. Here, the Sun is literally telling us to wave flags, and telling us that we must do it as a show of defiance against terrorist killers. Who wouldn't want to defy terrorist killers? Enough to make it necessary to mark ourselves out if we do?

This is where there is a difference between the 'Kick 'em in the baulbles' campaign and 'UP YOURS'. Whereas the first two called for people to do things they'd do anyway in defiance of non-existent PC killjoys an order to make the paper's readers scared of anything even slightly left wing, this article is asking readers to do something a bit less common, and for different reasons. What the Sun is doing this for is made clear pretty early in the article, when it says:

But Mr Brown REFUSED to rip up the Human Rights Act despite Britain’s security crisis.

And when the article switches from being about flag waving to how the Human Rights Act is hampering our security services, the link is made pretty clear.

Basically, the paper is co-opting its readers into adopting a viewpoint without ever soliciting it. Like with the George Cross, Christmas decorations and the defiance of PC Killjoys, or with the really crap Saddam Hangman nonsense. What it's doing here is encouraging readers to do something for one reason, while slipping another one under their radar. Now, not only is the paper creating a link between opposing the Human Rights Act and patriotic opposition of terrorist killers, but also setting things up so it can claim that not only are people flying the Union Flag in defiance of terrorists, but because they hate the Human Rights Act as well. And they can claim this about anyone who waves a Union Flag, too.

It's done in such a hamfisted and clumsy way, I despair that anyone will fall for it. Even some of the commenters on the story have seen through it - although that might be more because the paper attributed the order to Gordon Brown rather than anything else.

"Wave flag. Flag wave good. Human Rights Act bad. Wave Sun flag - flag wave good, Human Rights Act bad." There. Just saved the Sun a whole bunch of words that were just cluttering up the page. Not to mention the shit pictures.

Apologies for the light posting recently. Been off on my holidays again.