Scottish Mail apologises over asylum claims

The Scottish Daily Mail has published the following correction and apology, after a complaint from the Scottish Refugee Council:

In an article on January 25, 2013, headlined: "Crisis as Asylum Seekers target Scotland" we stated that asylum seekers were ‘targeting' Scotland. We now accept that asylum seekers are dispersed by the UK Border Agency on a ‘no choice' basis and would not be able to choose to live in Scotland. With the current rate of asylum applicants to the UK well within the average rate of the past ten years, we also accept that it is misleading to categorise this as a ‘crisis'. We are happy to clarify the position and apologise for the error.

According to the PCC:

The newspaper also agreed to: publish an article regarding the work of the Scottish Refugee Council; hold a meeting with the organisation; and inform editorial staff of the issues and concerns raised at the meeting.

Leveson on the 'discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced' reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.  

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as 'Muslim Only Public Loos', 'Terror Target Sugar', 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' and 'Muslim Plot To Kill Pope'. 

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including 'Swan Bake', 'Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys' and 'Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay...because he goes to the GYM' all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672): 

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

 

£600,000 not £5million

The Scottish Daily Mail has published this PCC-negotiated apology:

In December the Mail reported that over £5 million was being spent on last-ditch legal bids - judicial reviews - by asylum seekers to remain in Scotland. We are happy to make clear that this figure reflects the combined sums spent on advice and assistance (£3.5 million), assistance by way of representation (£1 million), and legal aid (£0.6 million) to asylum seekers and immigrants. The cost of legal aid work on judicial reviews falls within the latter figure. We apologise if readers were misled by our original story.

'If'.

Mail 'sets the record straight' on another Littlejohn column

On 5 August, Richard Littlejohn wrote:

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

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

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

On 16 August he returned to the same story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are happy to set the record straight.

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

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

No room for tolerance

Writing for the Independent, freelance journalist Samuel Muston says:

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

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

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

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



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

But here's a few other observations.

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

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

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

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

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

And, as Jonathan says:

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

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

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

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

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

So the Mail editorial says:

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

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

But the Express is rather more blunt:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Tabloid coverage of immigration: 'wilful misreporting, inflammatory language, lazy hostility'

Panorama reporter Paul Kenyon has written an article for the latest issue of British Journalism Review about media coverage of asylum and immigration. An abridged version appears in today's MediaGuardian.

Kenyon says:

the seemingly non-stop campaign against asylum- seekers, and the wilful misreporting of the issue among some tabloid newspapers, is getting worse.

'Wilful' is a strong allegation, but it's a fair one.

Important distinctions, such as that between asylum-seekers and economic migrants, are often fudged or overlooked; the language is inflammatory; there seems to be a lazy hostility towards them, implying a universal acceptance that what asylum -seekers represent, what they are, is wrong.

He also points out some of the specific problems with the coverage:

It is a perennial theme, repeated until it has become part of our national folklore.

The Sun's opinion column put it succinctly in April: 'Many asylum-seekers are no more than dole-scroungers.'

UK benefits are not what inspired the migrants I encountered. Although some were fleeing persecution, the vast majority were indeed economic migrants, but had no idea there was a state benefit system in the UK.

This latter view echoes Refugee Council research, published in January and ignored by the tabloid media (of course), that three-quarters of asylum seekers:

had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK – most had no expectation they would be given financial support.

Having made four programmes over two years on the issue, he's probably met more asylum seekers and immigrants than, for example, the Mail's James Slack, who thinks immigration reporting consists of copying-and-pasting Migrationwatch press releases.

But the problem is, as Kenyon is all too aware:

Around 3 million people watched the four Panorama programmes I eventually made, more than the circulation of the Sun.

A newspaper journalist can exercise his line on the story every day. Our programmes were transmitted over two years.

The anti-immigration tabloids are read by millions of people who are fed a diet of this negative, hostile, misleading coverage on an almost daily basis. The effect is that these views dominate and poison the debate about immigration.

How the Mail misleads with a headline

Here's the Mail's latest eye-catching anti-immigration headline:


And here's the first line of the story:

Two Afghan boys who were groomed by the Taliban to become suicide bombers revealed their determination to reach Britain today as they faced eviction from a notorious refugee camp in Calais.

Have you got the impression two young Afghan boys are on their way to Britain to be suicide bombers yet? Good.

Because a couple of sentences later the story changes:

And today the extraordinary story emerged of how two young Afghans who were targeted by the Taliban to become weapons against British troops are hoping to try to sneak into the UK to start a better life after their temporary home is demolished.

And then:

Najib, who has two sisters and a brother, said: 'It was not safe in my country because the Taliban were always trying to kidnap me and give me training for suicide attacks.

'They tried so many times to kidnap me. Luckily I escaped." His cousin, who has a sister and three brothers - one of them living in London - said they were desperate to get to Britain.'

He said: "My father wants me to reach the UK so I can get a good education and a better life. "In Afghanistan I cannot go out of my home because I am afraid of being kidnapped.

'If I get to the UK everything will be OK. I will be safe - and I will be alive.'

So not quite the budding suicide bombers the headline suggests. Still, the Mail have linked Afghans, immigrants and terrorists in one handy story. For them, job done.

Benefits madness

On Monday, the Express had a story about benefits on its front page. Coming less than a week after Judge Trigger made his ill-advised comments about illegal immigrants being behind the rising national debt, it was enough to make ignorant Express readers to put two and two together and come up with more than £42.16.

The Labour's £186bn benefits madness story was based on a Centre for Policy Studies report which was essentially calling for a simplification of the benefits sytem.

But some of the figures it used were interesting - and overlooked by the Express. The £186bn figure comes from the Budget Red Book forecasts for 2009-10. But in the first table of the report, the various benefits and allowances add up to £155.9bn - which is £30bn less.

And of that, £68.58bn is set aside for pensions and pension credit. That amounts to 43.6% of £155.9bn.

Clearly the Express will be campaigning to end that type of 'madness'.

Except, it was only in June they were complaining about the state pension being 'the most miserly in the developed world'.

But back to Judge Trigger who said, lest we forget:

People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people like you, come to these shores to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that exist here.

In the past ten years the national debt of this country has risen to extraordinary heights, largely because central Government has wasted billions of pounds. Much of that has been wasted on welfare payments. For every £1 that the decent citizen, who is hard-working, pays in taxes, nearly 10 per cent goes on servicing that national debt. That is twice the amount it was in 1997 when this Government came to power.

The table here for government spending on benefits in 1997 shows the figure at around £92bn out of total government expenditure of £318bn. Using the £155bn figure for spending on benefits in 2009, out of overall expenditure of £631bn appears to show that as a percentage, benefits made up 29% of expenditure in 1997 and is 24.5% in 2009.

Comparing the figures for welfare as a proportion of national debt (which seems an odd - rather meaningless - figure, but he brought it up...) shows

• 1997 - £92bn benefits / £357bn debt = £25.8%
• 2009 - £155bn / £794bn debt = 19.5%

So benefit payments as a percentage of overall spending, and of national debt, are in fact less in 2009 than in 1997.

Which seems to make Judge Trigger's remarks, errrr, wrong.

But then we already knew that, and it was confirmed when Littlejohn declared he spoke the 'truth'.

And the Mail has been big enough to give a slightly dissenting voice on Trigger a say. Lawyer Richard O'Hagan has not written on the substance of the comments, but has said:

Whilst he was undoubtedly expressing an opinion held by a vast number of people in this country, the most important thing about any judiciary is that it should be seen to be entirely impartial and to conduct cases without any regard to their own personal opinions.

In giving vent to his own views in this way, Judge Trigger has not only done himself no favours, he has also given the accused an opportunity to appeal against their conviction and sentence, on the grounds that he was biased.

Judge Trigger was, of course, merely the latest victim of judicial foot in mouth disease.

The idea that the drug dealer may have grounds for appeal because of Trigger's remarks is an interesting development - and something Littlejohn and the others haven't seemed to consider.

How convenient.

(Hat-tip to Jamie)

Littlejohn's back - but you can't really tell because it's like every other column he's ever written

It's never a good feeling to wander into the newsagents and see that Richard Littlejohn is going to be sharing his ignorant views on immigration with Daily Mail readers.

Today's column - the whole page - is full of such cliched Littlejohn talking points it's almost like a spoof.

There's the obligatory 'Mind How You Go', 'elf'n'safety' and 'yuman rites', there's 'dopey bird' to describe a young woman who has done something he doesn't like, there's a mention of the 'Wicked Witch' (yes, he's still on about Cherie Blair), and, of course, immigration, Muslims and homosexuality, which includes the use of the word 'nonce'.

But his main topic of concern is Judge Trigger. The headline is A judge telling the truth about immigration? Take him to the cells! which includes an interesting use of the word 'truth'.

It's not really worth going over the story again, but Littlejohn does. He adds:

Enter the country illegally, steal, sell drugs, forge passports and you'll be lavished with unlimited Legal Aid, benefits and sympathy.

Of course, the man in this case entered on a visitor visa, so not 'illegally'. The idea of 'unlimited' benefits is so wildly inaccurate that it hardly deserves critical comment (surprising he didn't mention the free cars though). It's worth repeating that apart from the time he was claiming asylum, this drug dealer was not on benefits. (And if he did receive asylum support payments for a full two years while his case was considered, that only amounts to £4,384.)

It's never been quite clear why Judge Trigger's remarks about the national debt had anything to do with immigration anyway - that really isn't the cause of the UK's financial woes.

Still, Littlejohn gives some advice to the drug dealer:

Lucien McClearley's best hope of remaining in Britain would seem to be cosying up to the nearest nonce while he's inside and throwing himself on the mercy of the Court of Appeal when he's released.

See what he did there? Hilarious. He's ranting about immigration and having a dig at homosexuals. Which he does again, in another little piece:

Just a thought, but if Harriet Harman reckons that it takes a man and a woman to run the country, why does she also believe that two men are perfectly capable of bringing up a baby without a mother?

Hardly seems a comparable situation, and in any case, Harman is a bit of an idiot and her comments were more designed for her own ambition than anything else. But she actually said one of either the leader or deputy leader should be a woman. That's not the same as 'running the country' together because we have a cabinet system. But if it gives Littlejohn a chance to slag off a loving couple who want to bring up a child, that's all that matters.

And then he moves on to the South Yorkshire Police for their attempts to improve relations with the Muslim community.

This patronising stunt is the clearest evidence yet that some sections of the police force have gone stark, staring bonkers.

Patronising? You mean patronising like calling a woman a 'dopey bird'? :

imagine how the majority of dedicated proper coppers feel when they see dopey birds dipping into the dressing-up box and indulging in a little light shopping in the name of 'celebrating diversity'.

It is still hard to understand how anyone could get so upset about what three policewomen do for one day in the name of improving understanding and cultural sensitivity. Can anyone explain what the problem is?

But from Littlejohn, none of this is any surprise at all. What is surprising is how he gets paid so much for reheating stories from that week's Mail, with a few extra insults and tiresome catchphrases thrown in.

Apples and oranges; soldiers and asylum seekers

A rotten Sunday Express 'investigation' decides to cash in on the controversy of payments to injured soldiers and write some more crap about benefits to asylum seekers.

David Jarvis' article compares the two in such a manipulative and misleading way that there is no other reason for it to exist than to increase animosity against asylum seekers.

Take the headline: Cash for asylum seekers but not Our Boys. It makes a statement that is clearly not true - does the Sunday Express really think soldiers get no cash? - but simply wants you to be angry.

But it also immediately introduces this false comparison about payments to soldiers, who are all regarded as heroes, and asylum seekers, who are all regarded as scrounging scum.

Here's what Jarvis claims: there were 2,500 asylum seekers from Afghanistan in 2006-07 and the cost in legal aid, accommodation and food allowances for these was £30 million. (It does not explain where that figure is from but whether it is right or not is not the point; it certainly seems a little off with the figures here from June 2009).

In comparison, there were 560 British soldiers wounded in Afghanistan were paid £5.3 million under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

Dividing the total costs by the number of people means each asylum seeker got £12,000 and each wounded soldier received £9,000. Any fool - or Express journo - can work that out.

Therefore, in the Sunday Express' view: Cash for asylum seekers but not Our Boys. The story even begins with the misleading:

The Government has handed out six times more cash to bogus Afghan asylum seekers than to our heroes wounded fighting the Taliban.

Six times more cash? That might just be because there were 2,500 of the former and only 560 of the latter.

More over, it is taking the soldier's compensation payments entirely in isolation. Take Corporal Anthony Duncan, who is mentioned in the story, who received £9,250 after being shot in the leg (and is now back fighting on the frontline in Afghanistan).

A Corporal in the British army receives an annual salary of £25,886.88. Jarvis doesn't mention that. And that's the equivalent of £497 per week, whereas asylum seekers will soon get £35 per week. Add in other costs soldiers receive - food, pension - and it proves the whole exercise of comparing these two things is entirely pointless.

And at the end of the story the Sunday Express admits as much:

The Ministry of Defence said the Armed Forced Compensation Scheme was in its infancy in 2006-07 and some soldiers were compensated out of the War Pension Scheme which did not show up in our figures.

So this 'investigation' hasn't even bothered to find out the total costs of payments to soldiers injured in Afghanistan.

And then, just so you may not see it on the website, the last sentence is curiously buried below a search bar. What could they be hiding with this odd bit of formatting?

It paid out over £33million in 2008-09.

Ah. Indeed according to the Ministry of Defence figures, the total amount paid in 2006/7 under the Scheme was £32.9million for 889 claims. If the Express says 560 of these were for Afghanistan that represents 63%. Yet £5.3million represents 16% of the total compensation paid. It's hardly surprising, but something doesn't seem quite right with the Sunday Express' figures.

But that's not really the most important issue. It's way they have decided to take on the cause of compensation to wounded soldiers, and turn it into another opportunity to outrage its readers about what asylum seekers are getting.

Once again, positive immigration story totally ignored

In yesterday's Independent and Financial Times, there were a reports about Eastern European migrants taking jobs and benefits in Britain since EU expansion in 2004. The stories were based on some academic research from University College London, namely Professor Christian Dustmann.

And what did the research conclude?

Immigrants from the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the European Union in May 2004 are less likely to be claiming welfare benefits and less likely to be living in social housing than people born in the UK, according to a new paper from UCL. What is more, they have made a positive contribution to the UK fiscal system, paying more in taxes than they receive in direct and indirect public transfers (such as benefits, NHS healthcare and education).

Here are some of the key facts from their press release:

• A8 immigrants who arrived after EU enlargement in 2004, and who have at least one year of residence – and are therefore legally eligible to claim benefits – are about 60% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and to live in social housing.
  

• Comparing the net fiscal contribution of A8 immigrants with that of individuals born in the UK, in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, A8 immigrants made a positive contribution to public finance.

• In the latest fiscal year, 2008/09, A8 immigrants paid 37% more in direct or indirect taxes than was spent on public goods and services which they received. This is even more remarkablebecause the UK has been running a budget deficit over the last few years.

• In 2008/09, A8 immigrants represented 0.91% of the total UK population, but contributed 0.96% of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6% of total expenditures.

Prof. Dustmann is quoted saying:

“A8 immigrants are on average more educated than natives and figures show that they experience rapid wage growth during their stay in the UK. We should therefore expect their tax payments to increase considerably over the next few years.”

A quick search of each newspaper's website, and Google News, indicates that the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph, Times and Guardian have all ignored these findings. You would think the usual suspects would like a bit of academic research on immigration, rather than relying on half-assed, biased Migrationwatch bullshit.

But when the answer doesn't suit their agenda, they clearly don't have any interest in reporting the facts.

In Janaury 2007, Express editor Peter Hill gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amongst many extraordinary and unbelievable claims ('I constantly reinforce this message, that we must be truthful in what we say'; 'It is very wrong of people to suggest that we cannot be truthful in our headlines. We must be able to be truthful in our headlines') he said the following:

'I think all my journalists are well aware that I do like the newspaper to be fair, and certainly to be truthful; but we have to report what we see. Quite frankly, there is not an awful lot of positive news on this particular subject. I am afraid most of the news is of a very negative nature'.

So here's a positive immigration story. And he doesn't bother running it.

At the same hearing, Mail Managing Editor Robin Esser said:

The idea that they are running around looking for inflammatory things to say about asylum seekers is wrong.

Really? So why has the Mail ignored this UCL research to report on the 'Bloody Siege of Calais', One of Queen's guards is an illegal immigrant, and Three Ethiopian exchange students 'vanish' during trip to Houses of Parliament?

(The Queen's guard story is interesting for the language used. An unnamed military officer uses the phrase 'the potential damage an enemy could do there' as if an illegal immigrant is not only automatically 'an enemy' but also a definite security threat. This was in the same manner as the the Sun's Loo Goes There story about a stowaway on a bus that went to Sandhurst. That story said: 'Afghan illegal who got into Sandhurst could have been a Taliban suicide bomber bent on causing carnage'. Because - of course - all Afghan's are Taliban, and all illegal immigrants are dangerous potential suicide bombers. The Mail version of the Afghan Illegal Immigrant at Sandhurst story, incidentally, included a crucial line towards the end: 'They were unable to confirm the man's nationality.')

Anyway, the same that Hill and Esser were lying through their teeth, The Guardian's Alan Travis told the Committee:

Recent Mori research in this area showed that Daily Express readers think that 21% of the British population are immigrants. The Daily Mail readers say it is about 19%. Guardian readers say it is about 11%. We are all actually exaggerating. It is only 7%.

Yesterday's Independent also included an investigative feature which claimed that in the past 23 days, 21 foreign language students in Brighton had been targeted by criminals. Some of these crimes were thefts from their homes, but there have been several more violent attacks, including two Uzbeki teenagers (14 and 15) being told to 'Speak English' and being called 'Pakis' as the attackers tried to force their way into their house.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

Shameless back-slap...and some thoughts

This very blog was mentioned in an article by Gaby Hinsliff, the political editor of the Observer, as an example of a 'new breed of blog' attacking the tabloids. She says: 'It's rough and ready, but it's an interesting new way of holding newspapers to account'.

Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?

It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.

The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.

But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?

The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.

This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?

Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.

Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.

So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.

But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.

The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.

There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.

This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.

This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.

Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.

In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.

Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.

A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?

My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.

Macer Hall deliberately misleads on asylum cases

Two days ago, the UK Border Agency's chief executive, Lin Homer gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. It was mainly newsworthy, to the tabloids, for the Nigerian jail story.

But she also gave an update on the progress with the so-called asylum legacy cases. This news has finally reached the Desmond papers - and swiftly been massaged into something not very accurate.

Here's how it was reported by the Guardian:

197,500 of the 450,000 cases had been resolved by the end of May. Of those resolved, a third (62,000 people) had gained permission to stay in the UK. For 27,500, removal directions were issued.

However, a caveat should be added to that from the Home Office's UK Border Agency website:

We have previously estimated that there are between 400,000 and 450,000 electronic and paper records, but many of them are duplicates or errors. So this figure is not the number of asylum applicants awaiting a decision.

Therefore, as there are not 450,000 cases, you couldn't just say 'well, as a third of the resolved cases have resulted in leave to remain, we'll divide 450,000 by three and say that's how many are staying'.

Unless you were a moronic, lazy, anti-immigrant journalist. In which case, you already have.

So in its story '150,000 asylum seekers to stay' the Star claims: 'Nearly 150,000 asylum seekers will stay in Britain because staff cannot handle the paperwork'. Which is a bizarrely worded first paragraph, using incorrect figures and making it seem as if these asylum seekers aren't being allowed to stay for any other legitimate reason.

The Star then quotes two totally unbiased commentators on the subject - Migrationwatch and the TaxPayers' Alliance.

Those two also pop up in the Express' version of the story. Soft-touch asylum as 144,000 get 'back door amnesty' is their headline. Of course, only 62,000 have actually been granted leave to remain, so talking of the 144,000 in the present tense is misleading. And the 144,000 is dubious anyway, because there aren't 450,000 cases - the Express allows 'officials' to call the figure 'speculative' towards the end of the story (and only towards the end of the story).

But journalist Macer Hall also makes it seem as if all those people who have been given leave to remain shouldn't have been. The use of the button-pushing word 'amnesty' is for no other reason than to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment, and implies their asylum claims had no genuine merit. As the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association states:

Some people think...the Home Office have begun a new ‘amnesty’ exercise for granting indefinite leave to remain to people in order to clear their backlog. This is not correct. The Home Office may grant leave to remain to some individuals. However, this will only happen if the individual’s circumstances meet existing criteria for a grant of leave to remain.

But Hall ploughs on, saying: 'many suspected border cheats are effectively being given an amnesty from deportation.' Except, it's not an amnesty. And asylum seekers are not 'border cheats'. He also writes: 'Many are claimants who should have been deported as far back as the mid-1990s'.

But the fact of them being 'legacy cases' is that their original cases were never decided one way or another. Hall and the Express either don't understand this, or - more likely - wilfully choose to ignore it. Here is the UK Border Agency explanation:

We define these unresolved asylum cases as ones where an asylum claim has been made and, as yet, the application has not been concluded either because of errors in recording information or because there is still some action we need to take on it.

So if they never had their asylum claim turned down, how can Hall conclude they 'should have been deported'? Of course, the Express is only interested in making them all seem undeserving. And to that end both it and the Star conveniently 'forget' to mention that 27,500 who have had their claims rejected and are lined up for removal.

It's more insidious inflammatory and - of course - untrue crap from hate-filled papers.

Still, at least a previous, ridiculous scare story about the legacy cases - that half a million asylum seekers would be granted leave to remain as the backlog was cleared - has been well and truly destroyed. Who would come up with such wildly exaggerated bullshit?

Macer Hall. In the Express.

Yes, in 2007's Secret 'amnesty' for 500,000 asylum cases, he believed all those 450,000 'cases' were to be approved, and then made up another 50,000 just to make it an even half-million. He also inaccurately referred to 'failed asylum seekers' and 'immigrants who were turned down for refugee status but not expelled from the country'. So after two years, he still doesn't understand what he's talking about. Or doesn't want to.

Littlejohn shows his ignorance. Again.

In between one mention of 'hell in a handcart' and two of 'elf'n'safety' (I shudder just typing it), Littlejohn once again proves his total ignorance of the matters he writes about. In a rant about the reduction in the number of job vacancies for migrant workers ('Believe it when it happens. There’s always a loophole') he says that there is still a shortage of orchestral musicians. Therefore:

Stand by for an influx of asylum-seekers arriving at Victoria coach station clutching violins, clinging to the roof of Eurostar with one hand while playing a clarinet with the other and tap-dancing their way through immigration.

Which manages to be both totally unfunny and totally incorrect. Because asylum seekers aren't allowed to work. You'd think someone who was so obsessed with the subject would at least know that after all this time.

Daily Star celebrates St George, but doesn't follow any of what he stood for

The Daily Star have been obsessing over the impending St George's Day, blurring the line between patriotism and racism. Today, three pages and an editorial are dedicated to him. It includes a '10 facts about our hero' which includes a helpful reminder that 'George never slew a dragon.' Thanks for that. I'm sure most people realise that already, as they don't exist...

But...umm...one person who doesn't realise is Emma Wall. Reporter for the Daily Star. In her full-of-irony article St George's Daze: Kids haven't got a clue about him, she laments the results of a new poll showing 'half of us are clueless about our saint...seven in 10 young people do not even know when St George's Day is.' She goes on:

Shock new figures show 25million have no idea why the famous dragon-slayer is our patron saint despite a recent swell of English pride.

Clueless indeed.

The article continues with a quote from the editor of This England magazine, Stephen Garnett. He says:

“St George stands for everything that makes this country great – freedom of expression, helping those less fortunate, tolerance of other people’s beliefs, kindness and standing up for what you believe to be right."

But when did the Daily Star ever exhibit any of those characteristics? Its editorial rants about 'mass immigration,' 'PC loonies' and 'Islamic extremists' having 'confused our sense of identity'. Note that these people are not considered one of 'us'.

The Muslim Luton protestors were exercising freedom of expression but were vilified by the Star. Asylum seekers are less fortunate, but their second editorial calls them all undeserving benefit scroungers. The Star certainly doesn't tolerate the views of the so-called politically correct.

So what is it about St George they do like? The answer is, it appears, rather sinister.

NOTW: complains about immigrants, doesn't know what they are

In an article headlined Hide 'n' seekers, News of the World reporter Kevin Widdop displays typical tabloid ignorance about definitions of people in the immigration system.

The latest report on the situation in Calais (brace yourself, there's more to come) refers to the people there as 'illegal immigrants', 'illegals', 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees'. That's just about a full house.

The PCC's Guidance note on refugees and asylum seekers says journalists should 'take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology'. Will the PCC give the NOTW a telling-off for the latest trangression? Don't hold your breath...