The Daily Mail and the ‘victimisation of Christianity’

On 2 June, the Manchester Evening News reported on a case at Trafford Magistrates Court:

A high-flying businessman was hauled before the court for a tirade of religious abuse at a Muslim immigration official waiting to check his passport.

Anthony Holt, 65, had become wound up after reading an article in the Daily Mail about the ‘victimisation of Christianity’ on a flight into Manchester.

When he landed, the retired consultant refused to go through a desk where Sayima Mohammed was on duty.

He astonished witnesses by pointing at her and saying: “I don’t want to be seen by that. I don’t want to be seen by any Muslim in a position of authority. I want to be seen by someone who’s English. This is England. This is my country. I’m not into all this Islam.”

...He had been reading an article in the Mail in which the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey spoke of the ‘victimisation of Christians and Christianity’.

A couple of weeks later, the Mail published another article about the so-called 'victimisation of Christianity'.

It involves the case of Dr Richard Scott, who has been given a written warning by the General Medical Council. Scott was supported by the Christian Legal Centre, who have been prominent is bringing similar cases to the media's attention. Days before the final ruling, the GMC had told the CLC that 'premature comment...can be unhelpful'.

The Mail's reporting of the case is wholly one-sided. The paper's James Tozer writes:

A Christian doctor yesterday claimed he was a victim of religious discrimination after being disciplined for discussing his faith with a suicidal patient.

Richard Scott, 51, a former medical missionary, was reprimanded despite the 24-year-old complainant not even having to turn up to give evidence.

But the GMC Committee makes clear:

The Committee received oral testimony from you [Dr Scott] and Patient A. Patient A was permitted to give his evidence by telephone following the Committee’s earlier ruling. Patient A was supervised throughout his evidence by a GMC legal representative at the direction of the Committee. You were both subject to cross examination and were asked questions by the Committee.

It is worth reading the full verdict of the Committee as it provides a much fuller picture of what actually happened and what informed their decision.

The Mail neglects to mention crucial parts of the Committee's judgement. For example, their clear statement that:

this case did not constitute an attack on the Christian faith. GMC guidance acknowledges the role of faith issues in medical care and the right of doctors to raise such matters within the consultation provided that it is done with the patient’s consent and with sensitivity and respect for any faith they might have.

And:

The Committee does not consider that matters of faith are irrelevant to clinical care, and accepts that there are many circumstances in which spiritual assistance is valuable. 

Lord Carey pops up in the Mail's article to say:

'I’m extremely saddened by this ruling. Many Christians will be asking whether they any longer have the freedom to express their faith.'

It seems clear - as with his comments on the BBC BC/AD case - that he has not made himself aware of all the evidence before issuing his ready-made comment. 

Scott was accused of telling Patient A that he was:

not going to offer him any medical help or tests or advice

And:

you had something to offer Patient A which would cure him for good and that this was his one and only hope in recovery

And:

if Patient A did not turn towards Jesus and hand Jesus his suffering, then Patient A would suffer for the rest of his life

And:

his own religion could not offer him any protection and that no other religion in the world could offer Patient A what Jesus could offer him

And:

the devil haunts people who do not turn to Jesus and hand him their suffering

And Scott was:

told by Patient A that he had not come to a doctor to talk about religion and that he had come to the Practice because he was unwell and desperately needed help, or words to that effect.

The Committee ruled it was proved - or, in one case, proved in part - that these these statements had indeed been said.

Crucially, the Mail also neglects to mention that Dr Scott admitted that if Patient A's recollection was correct:

a significant departure from Good Medical Practice and supplemental guidance...would have occurred.

And, in the end, the Committee believed Patient A's recollection was correct. They explained:

Having made due allowance for the fact that Patient A gave his evidence by telephone and not in person, the Committee considers that it was able to obtain a sufficient impression of his truthfulness from the manner in which he gave his evidence and his response to questions. The Committee consider that Patient A gave credible evidence, direct answers and made all due allowances in your favour.

The Committee considered that while you sought to answer questions truthfully a number of your responses were in conflict with the evidence. Specifically, the Committee noted that it is unlikely that the very full record of the consultation which you made would have omitted mention of the treatment plan if it had been discussed – since this would have happened before the discussion about religion. The Committee regards it as unlikely that the discussion of your faith lasted only two and a half minutes as you contended, bearing in mind the breadth of material covered during your discussion. Furthermore, regrettably, at times you appeared to be evasive when answering questions.

The suggestion that Dr Scott was at times 'evasive' and some of his answers were 'in conflict with the evidence' is also absent from the Mail's version of this story.

The Committee pointed out:

Your actions were in direct conflict with the GMC’s supplementary guidance: Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice. This states in paragraph 19 that:

‘You must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or views’.

Your actions also contravened Paragraph 33 of Good Medical Practice:

‘You must not express to your patients your personal beliefs including political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.’

Part of the evidence for reaching their conclusion came from the media interviews Scott had done to gain support and bang the 'victimisation of Christianity' drum:

You subsequently confirmed, via National media, that you had sought to suggest your own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.

In this way you sought to impose your own beliefs on your patient.

After quoting Dr Scott, the Christian Legal Centre, Lord Carey and the Christian Medical Fellowship, the Mail publishes a two-sentence quote from a GMC spokesman right at the end of the article.

(Thanks to Press Not Sorry and Jon)

PCC tells Mail to 'take greater care' when reporting 'BBC drops BC/AD'

The Press Complaints Commission has issued its response to complaints made about the vast number of misleading 'BBC drops BC/AD' articles that appeared in September and October, particularly in the Mail newspapers.

Its verdict? It isn't going to adjudicate:

The Commission generally only considers complaints from those directly involved in the stories about which they are complaining. This is for reasons of co-operation, information and consent: often it will not be possible to come to a view under the Code without the input of a first party. In addition, any remedial action as a result of the complaint – or any decision issued by the Commission – would require consent. In this case, the Commission had contacted the BBC following receipt of the complaints in order to establish whether it wished to complain about the accuracy of the coverage. It had made clear that it did not wish to complain.

The Commission understood the position outlined by the complainants; however, it had to decide whether it was able to pursue the matter without the consent and co-operation of the BBC. It decided that it was unable to do so: it was for the BBC to complain about the coverage. In addition, the BBC’s position had been outlined in the article (albeit not with the prominence that one complainant had wished). Again, this was an issue that the Commission considered required direct involvement. It was not able to engage with the newspaper – or arrange for any remedial action – without the organisation’s consent. Ultimately, the Commission considered that it was unable to take the matter forward without the involvement of the BBC.

There were some outstanding concerns about the follow-up coverage in the Daily Mail on 29th and 30th September. The Commission noted that the coverage in these articles sought to summarise the basic premise yet had become increasingly reductive as the BBC’s position had not been included. However, while it acknowledged the complainants’ concerns, it ultimately considered that it could not take the matter forward without the involvement of the BBC. The Commission took the opportunity of this decision to bring the matter to the newspaper’s attention; furthermore, it trusted that the newspaper would, in the event of any further coverage on the issue, take greater care to clearly present the position of the BBC, as per its public statement. Nonetheless, in the absence of a complaint from the BBC, the Commission was unable to pursue the matter formally.

In some cases, it is understandable that the PCC would decided a third-party complaint is not enough. However, in this case, given the repeated and very clear public denials from the BBC of the original claims, it seems odd, if unsurprising, that the PCC felt unable to fully consider the complaints.

It took a similar line when Suffolk Police refused to complain about the false 'Police chiefs fly gay pride flag...but are forbidden to put up the Union Jack' story. But the PCC acknowledged public denials from the police and asked that the Mail 'take heed' and 'alter the article accordingly'. This was a far-from-perfect outcome - the Mail deleted the original article without ever having to explain why or print a correction. But it was something.

This time, the PCC's line that:

it trusted that the newspaper would, in the event of any further coverage on the issue, take greater care to clearly present the position of the BBC, as per its public statement

is worthless. After all, the Mail on Sunday had the BBC's very clear position in its original article but relegated those words to the end and ignored what they said. It chose to run its misleading story in the way it did anyway.

Incidentally, Peter Wright, the Mail on Sunday's editor, sits on the PCC but we are assured editors leave the room if a complaint about their paper is up for discussion.

(See also Nothing Special)

Mail exaggerates 'church fury' over McDonald's

Here's a classic Mail headline:

Christmas. Muslim. Church fury.

The article begins:

Church leaders have hit out at a branch of McDonald's which is to open on Christmas Day.

Which 'church leaders' are in a 'church fury' according to the article? 

Parish Rvd Wayne Stillwell said the decision to open the branch showed 'the continuing decline of Christendom in this country' and his reaction was 'one of great sadness'.

So he's 'sad' rather than in a 'fury'. Who else?

Well, the only other 'church' leader quoted in the story is the Dean of Derby, who says:

"Families and friends should come together at Christmas, and if they want to do that in McDonald’s then who is the Church to object?"

So one 'church leader' is a bit sad about McDonald's opening on Christmas Day, a rather more senior church leader says he has no objection. The Mail spins that as 'church fury' by 'church leaders'.

At the end of the article, a McDonald's spokesman reveals:

"We expect there to be about 60 stores in the UK that remain open this year."

That begs the question: why has the Mail decided to highlight this one store where a 'Muslim manager' has been 'drafted in'?

'Dumbfounded'

It appears there is still no end in sight to the myth that the BBC is to stop using BC/AD.

In yesterday's Mail on Sunday, there were two further articles repeating the claim. The headline on Chris Hastings' follow-up said: Government to save Year of our Lord from BBC's 'Common Era'.

'BBC's 'Common Era'' - as if it is something they have invented or they alone use.


There is also a comment piece from former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey. It begins:

Dionysius Exiguus would be dumbfounded at the attempts by the BBC to issue guidelines that amount to ditching the well-known terms in our calendar, BC and AD.

Remember the BBC stated last week:

The BBC has issued no editorial guidance on date systems.

Curiously, Carey then states:

I always try to be fair to those whose views challenge my own, so let us listen to what the guidelines say

Well, it's not being 'fair' if you say something is a guideline when it's not, and it's not being 'fair' if you pretend the BBC hasn't said something it has. If he had listened to what the BBC had said, he wouldn't need to make this assumption:

So why does the BBC wish to challenge and, we assume, discard this ancient usage?

The BBC stated very clearly that on this issue:

the decision rests with the individual editorial and production teams. 

Yet Carey says:

I would like to think that the BBC might rethink the guidelines it has sent out to its programme directors

It is also worth noting that the story has, once again, been denied - this time by the BBC's Head of Religion and Ethics, Aaqil Ahmed. On Friday, he wrote:

The story, suggesting we had dropped AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ), was quite simply wrong. We have issued no editorial guidelines or instructions to suggest that anyone in the BBC should change the terms they use. The BBC, like most people, use BC and AD as standard terminology.

But we recognise that it is possible to use different terminology, and that some people do: that is what is reflected on our Religion website. Even though we told the newspaper this, they ran the story anyway.

Just for the record, for our religion and ethics programming on BBC television and radio we generally use AD and BC. It is a shame that people seeking to make mischief should cast a shadow over the wonderful celebration of our Christian religious heritage that is Songs of Praise.

(Angry Mob has also written about Carey's article, while Five Chinese Crackers has awarded the Mail and Mail on Sunday his 'Tabloid Bullshit of the Month Award' for this story.)

And, of course, Littlejohn...

It was something of a surprise that Richard Littlejohn didn't mention the BBC BC/AD non-story in his column on Tuesday. But he just couldn't resist.

Today, under the headline Whatever the BBC say, Britain is still mainly white, Christian and straight (has the BBC ever said the opposite?), Littlejohn proclaims:

Only this week the BBC announced it was scrapping references to AD and BC because it didn’t want to offend, or discriminate against, non-Christians.

And here, again, is what the BBC actually 'announced' 'this week' about this issue:

It is incorrect to say that the BBC has replaced date systems BC and AD with Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE). Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology, it is possible to use different terminology, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research. The BBC has issued no editorial guidance on date systems, and the decision rests with the individual editorial and production teams.

So: did Littlejohn know his statement was untrue, and wrote it anyway, or did he not bother to check his facts, and so wrote out of complete ignorance?

And how many more times is the Mail going repeat something that it must know is not true?

(Thanks to all who got in touch about Littlejohn's remark)

And on it goes...

The BBC BC/AD saga rumbles on.

Two days ago, the BBC published a response to the complaints it had received on the issue:

It is incorrect to say that the BBC has replaced date systems BC and AD with Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE). Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology, it is possible to use different terminology, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research. The BBC has issued no editorial guidance on date systems, and the decision rests with the individual editorial and production teams. It should also be noted that for every BCE or CE reference, there are still a great many BC and AD references used across the BBC.

But the Mail's Steve Doughty has decided to completely ignore this and repeat the original lie. In today's paper, he writes:

The finding that the nation remains overwhelmingly Christian comes days after it emerged that BBC programme-makers have been put under pressure to stop describing dates as BC or AD.

Instead, they have been told to use the non-Christian alternatives Before Common Era and Common Era.

To Doughty, 'no editorial guidance' and 'decision rests with the individual editorial and production teams' means 'programme-makers have been put under pressure' and 'have been told'.

Hopefully, Full Fact will now include this in their complaint to the PCC on this issue.

(Hat-tip to build_a_fire)

The 'BBC drops BC/AD' lie continues to spread

Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday's front page story claimed that the BBC had 'dropped' the abbreviations BC/AD and ordered that BCE/CE be used instead. The former had been 'replaced' and 'jettisoned', it said. The BBC had 'turned its back on the year of our Lord'.

There was much in the article that proved this wasn't true. The examples where both had been used. The quote from a BBC presenter saying he'd continue using BC/AD. And, most importantly, the relegated-to-the-end-in-the-hope-no-one-sees-it quote from a BBC spokesman which stated:

'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'

In case there was any doubt, the BBC also told the Guardian's Reality Check:

Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology it is also possible for individuals to use different terminology if they wish to, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research.

So BC/AD is used as 'standard' but the BBC allows people to use BCE/CE, based on personal preference.

Knowing that is the case, why did the Mail on Sunday decide to run its 'BC/AD dropped' story? And why have other newspapers and columnists continue to repeat the 'ban' lie as if it is true?

On Sunday, the Telegraph's website churned out a quick news story that repeated the claims despite also including (at the end, of course) the BBC's quote denying them.

In the Mail's RightMinds section, James Delingpole said of the BBC:

No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ)...All reference to Christ has been expunged.

This depite the BBC's denial - which he doesn't mention - and despite the fact there are many references to BC and AD on the BBC's website.

Either Delingpole knew this, and wrote that the terms had been 'expunged' anyway, or he didn't check, and wrote it without knowing for sure. It's very poor practice either way. And that's not a first for Delingpole - he also repeated the £32-loaf-of-bread nonsense a day after that first appeared, despite it being completely wrong.

On Sunday evening, RightMinds ran another column on the subject, this time from Reverend Dr Peter Mullen, who once 'joked' about tattooing homosexuals with health warnings. It begins:

No one should be surprised that the BBC has stopped using the abbreviations all us have always known: BC for Before Christ and AD for Anno Domini - the years of our Lord.

Since they haven't, it's not the best start. And it doesn't get any better:

Because the BBC is the very vanguard of the secularizing tendency which has declared itself as wanting to obliterate Christianity from public life and the public discussion of important moral and political affairs.

This hatred of our Christian heritage...

To be honest, I don't think the BBC's undoubted loathing of our Christian heritage is the main issue.

They just loath anything that smacks of tradition and value and Englishness, of all that most of us were brought up to respect.

Like Stalin or Pol Pot, the BBC would like to abolish all reverence for the past

Mullen's rant was published at 6.27pm on Sunday night - less than an hour after BBC1 broadcast 30-minutes of hymns and tradition in Songs of Praise: 50 Amazing Years. Earlier in the day, BBC Radio 4 had broadcast Sunday Worship. Every weekday the same station broadcasts Prayer for the Day, Thought for the Day and the Daily Service. Is this the BBC's 'undoubted loathing of our Christian heritage'?

Moreover, thirty-five minutes into Sunday's episode of Antiques Roadshow expert John Axford used both BC and AD. This was two hours after Mullen had told everyone the BBC had 'stopped using' the abbreviations.

It was somewhat inevitable that Melanie Phillips would also mention it in her column in Monday's Daily Mail. She said the BBC:

has decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

Either she hadn't read the BBC's statement - or even, as a journalist, spoken to the BBC for clarification on the matter - or she decided it was worth ignoring.

She says:

One of the most sinister aspects of political correctness is the way in which its edicts purport to be in the interests of minority groups.

This is despite the fact that, very often, they are not promulgated at the behest of minorities at all, but by members of the majority who want to destroy their own culture and who use minorities to camouflage their true intentions.

The latest manifestation stars once again that all-time world champion of political correctness, the BBC.

But then she adds:

It so happens, however, that along with many other Jewish people I sometimes use CE and BCE since the terms BC and AD are not appropriate to me.

Do as she says, not as she does. If the abbreviations are not 'appropriate' to her, why should they be 'appropriate' to everyone who works at the BBC? Phillips also refers to the BBC's 'edict' on this matter but the 'edict' is, as the BBC has made clear, 'use whichever terms you want'.

She then points to some examples of BCE/CE being used - not ones she has found through any research, but ones highlighted by the Mail on Sunday:

the terms CE and BCE are now increasingly finding their way onto news bulletins and on programmes such as University Challenge or Melvyn Bragg’s Radio Four show In Our Time.

Thursday's edition of In Our Time is already being trailed on the BBC website:

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the Etruscan civilisation.

Around 800 BC a sophisticated civilisation began to emerge in the area of Italy now known as Tuscany.

Phillips wider argument is that language is being 'hijacked' and so:

debate becomes impossible...words...have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.

But what about the BBC's words? How can a debate be possible on this topic when the Mail on Sunday, Delingpole, Mullen and Phillips refuse to take on board what the BBC has said and what it actually does? How does:

Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology it is also possible for individuals to use different terminology if they wish to

become, to Phillips:

AD and BC...must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

Words have indeed come to mean the precise opposite.

(Moreover, Phillips uses her column to claim 'Christmas has been renamed in various places 'Winterval'' despite the fact it hasn't been renamed Winterval in any place.)

And Phillips wasn't the only one in today's papers taking the same line. In the Telegraph, Mayor of London Boris Johnson said:

...it now turns out that some BBC committee or hierarch has decided that this nativity – notional or otherwise – can no longer be referred to by our state-funded broadcaster...

You know what, I just don't think this is good enough. This decision by the BBC is not only puerile and absurd. It is also deeply anti-democratic...

Johnson appears to believe in the myth of some centrally-issued edict that is banning the use of BC/AD at the BBC. But what he's actually calling 'deeply anti-democratic' is a position that says 'individuals can do what they wish'. Indeed, Martin Robbins argues that it is the Mail's view - 'It's not enough that the BBC allows staff to use AD, they must use it, always' - that is the more problematic.

As well as the columns by Johnson and Phillips, there have been further 'news' articles in today's papers. The Express' headline - 'Atheist' BBC drops year of Our Lord' - was very similar to the Mail on Sunday's. The article stated:

Bosses advised staff to replace Anno Domini – the Year Of Our Lord – and Before Christ with terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

The Mail and Telegraph both quoted BBC presenters who maintain they will be sticking to BC/AD yet both papers still refer to a 'diktat' and 'guidance' that the terms are 'barred'. The Mail's article puts the BBC's denial earlier in the story than the Mail on Sunday managed, yet it still carries the headline: Andrew Marr says he will ignore BBC diktat to stop use of BC and AD.

At the time of writing, there are 900 comments on Johnson's article, over 100 on Phillips' and over 1,500 on the original Mail on Sunday story. The vast majority are attacking the BBC for some 'edict' that they haven't, actually, issued. The story has been repeated on countless blogs, websites and forums and been linked to by outraged people on Twitter.

The BBC's position - BC/AD is standard, but people can use whichever they want - has generally been forgotten or ignored.

To quote Phillips again:

The result of this hijacking of the language is that debate becomes impossible because words like...truth and many more have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.

(Hat-tips to Mark Burnley, Jem Stone and Martin Robbins)

BC and AD not 'jettisoned' by BBC

Last Sunday, Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens wrote:

The BBC’s Chief Commissar for Political Correctness (whom I imagine as a tall, stern young woman in cruel glasses issuing edicts from an austere office) was hard at work again last week.

On University Challenge, Jeremy Paxman referred to a date as being Common Era, rather than AD. This nasty formulation is designed to write Christianity out of our culture.

One week on, and his paper has decided this observation is worthy of the front page lead:

The article by Chris Hastings begins:

The BBC has been accused of 'absurd political correctness' after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

'Jettisoned'. 'Dropped'. 'Replaced'.

But skip to the statement from the BBC - inevitably relegated to the very last paragraph of the story - and we're told:

The BBC said last night: 'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'

So the BBC uses both. Indeed, Hastings' article proves BC and AD haven't been 'jettisoned' when he points out:

The terms are not confined to religious output and have also been used in news bulletins. Some reports add to the confusion by switching between both terms in the same item.

He goes on to quote several people unhappy with the BBC, who seem to believe BC and AD have, indeed, been 'dropped' (probably because that's what Hastings told them when he asked for their reaction). But he also gets a quote from Today and Mastemind presenter John Humphrys who says:

"I will continue to use AD and BC because I don't see a problem."

Despite this Hastings believes his story is true and he knows what's behind it:

This is not the first time the BBC has caused controversy over its use of alien language to promote a politically correct, Europhile agenda.

It's not clear why CE and BCE are deemed 'alien' or 'Europhile'. It's not as if the terms are new - the Mail on Sunday includes a box which dates them back to the mid-nineteenth century. It also says they are becoming 'particularly common in the United States'.

In the article, Simon Schama says he's been 'familar' with BC and BCE 'since the Fifties'. And, as Hastings points out, it's not even as if the BBC has only just started using the terms - one example he highlights dates from March 2010:

Last year, Northern Ireland correspondent William Crawley referred to the construction of the Temple of Solomon in about 950 BCE.

So Hastings has the BBC quote denying the terms have been dropped. He has a prominent BBC presenter saying he's going to keep using the BC and AD. And he has his own evidence saying BBC journalists are 'switching between both terms'.

Yet Hastings still writes the article in this way, and the Mail on Sunday still splashes it all over the front page.

UPDATE: James Delingpole has a comment piece on this in the Mail's RightMinds section. He apparently sees this 'news' as evidence of a:

Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within

He says:

No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ)...All reference to Christ has been expunged

If only the BBC website didn't prove him wrong.

Mail reports joke as fact

On Tuesday, Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine tweeted:

Followed by:

Apparently missing that the first comment was tongue-in-cheek, the Mail rushed into action with a 'bash-the-BBC, Christianity-under-attack' classic:

At time of writing, however, the Mail's article has disappeared, quietly deleted from the Mail's website as it realised Vine's comment may not have been entirely serious.

Why?

Well, the Express published the story in Wednesday's paper, on page five:

BBC presenter Jeremy Vine sparked a row yesterday after claiming he had to ask bosses for “special permission” to play a Christian hymn on his show – for fear of upsetting other religions...

It is understood permission had to be given by BBC bosses in case playing a Christian hymn was seen as promoting one religion over another.

But skip to the end of the Mark Reynolds' story and there's this:

Last night a BBC spokeswoman said the presenter had not been serious on Twitter. She said: “Jeremy tweeted a light-hearted remark to highlight the fact he doesn’t normally play hymns in the show. Of course he did not need approval to play the hymn.”

How Reynolds 'understood' why permission had to be given when it didn't isn't entirely clear. And why would he need permission, if they are 'keen' to find the nation's favourite?

The Mail's website has not printed the BBC's comment, or clarified why their article was deleted. But their version of the story has already spread across the internet.

Did 'elf 'n' safety' ban an Easter parade?

The Mail claims:


This is a dream for the Mail - health and safety, an alleged ban and the alleged persecution of Christians all in one story.

Nick Fagge reports:

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

So - it's been banned because of health and safety. That's clear, right?

Well, the statement from Brent Council that inevitably appears at the end of the article suggests it's not quite that clear:

‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago.

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks.

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

Ah. So the organisers missed a five-week deadline for notifying the Council. Not quite health and safety.

But the parade has been banned, hasn't it?

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

Oh.

The man in charge of the parade, Father Hugh MacKenzie, knows the type of quotes that get you in papers such as the Mail, however:

‘The rights of Christians are being overlooked in favour of the rights of Islamic groups and gay rights organisations.

‘One does wonder whether if it was a homosexual rights or Islamic group the council would have been more flexible, as it doesn’t seem like rocket science to permit us to walk 400 metres.

‘The rights of Christians are just not respected in Britain.’

So blame the gays, blame the Muslims, blame health and safety. Don't blame yourself for applying too late for the Council's permission to close the road. And say you can't parade when you can.

The Mail also claims that this parade takes place 'every year' - those are the first two words of the article and they're repeated later in the piece. It appears, however, that the parade last took place in 2008.

A further statement has been issued by Brent Council, emphasising that the parade is definitely not banned from taking place:

Brent Council and the Metropolitan Police have advised and encouraged the organisers of this parade to hold this event as long as they stay on the footpath and the event is stewarded.

We have many other Good Friday Parades happening in Brent including one with twice the number of people and this takes place on the footpath every year avoiding the need for a traffic order.

Traffic orders are there for the safety of the parade participants, the general public and motorists and are needed by any group wanting to take over the highway.

This particular parade has not taken place for around three years.

In the past the police organised the road closures, however, a change in police policy has meant event organisers have to contact their Local Authority five weeks in advance to arrange a road closure.

The application for this parade was received 4 April.

(Hat-tip to Press Not Sorry. Primly Stable has also blogged on this 'ban' here)

Winterval (again)

Yesterday, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles issued a press release entitled 'Councils should take pride in Christmas celebrations.'

It came with all the usual nonsense about 'politically correct Grinches' and the 'War on Christmas':

"The War on Christmas is over, and likes of Winterval, Winter Lights and Luminous deserve to be in the dustbin of history."

Mr Pickles explained that the Christian festival has previously been ambushed by those intent on re-branding Christmas as a bland 'Winter festival', insisting that multi-cultural Britain can enjoy Christmas without abandoning its underlying Christian heritage in a misguided attempt to appease these politically correct 'Grinches'.

Ah, Winterval. Not even December and it's time for Winterval stories.

Although Paul Dacre has claimed that the Mail never does churnalism, 'Daily Mail Reporter' quickly bashed out a story, which involved copying-and-pasting all the quotes from Pickles.

And the Mail then stuck this headline on the story:


Winterval was, of course, 'ditched' in 1998-9 - which was the second and last time Birmingham council used it.

It did point out that:

the Winterval festival of the 1990s...combined secular and inter-faith religious elements

which is at least some progress from the usual 'Christmas renamed as Winterval' myth - the myth that appeared in Emma Wall's article in the Star:

A clutch of councils have cancelled Christmas and replaced it with multicultural holidays in a bid to be right-on.

Changes have included banning carols and even rebranding the celebrations “Winterval”.

Wall doesn't provide the name of one council that has actually 'cancelled Christmas'. And she has form on this - when the tabloids leapt on remarks made by the Pope during his visit to the UK in September, Wall wrote:

Speaking to a packed Westminster Hall in London, he urged people to turn their backs on the use of words like “Winterval” to describe the festival of Jesus’s birth.

Once again, she didn't name any person who had done this.

Over in the Express, there was lots of hyperbole about Christmas being 'saved' from the 'PC Brigade' and a 'major victory for common sense'. But hack Martyn Brown was also being less than truthful when he referred to:

Birmingham’s annual Winterval festival

That's 'annual' in the sense that it happened in 1997-8 and 1998-9 but not before or since.

Brown also said:

Town halls were last night ordered to celebrate Christmas in the traditional way

But Pickles' statement was 'urging', not 'ordering' (albeit 'urging' councils to stop using some terms that haven't been used for over a decade anyway).

In the Sun, Clodagh Hartley claimed Pickles had:

said the politically correct days of calling December 25 a "Winter Festival" must end.

That's not quite what he had said (he made no reference to Christmas Day) - and Hartley doesn't mention which council has renamed Christmas Day 'Winter Festival'.

The tone of the coverage, and the majority of the comments that have followed each article, are in praise of Pickles. The 'War on Christmas' myth lives on.

As Anton Vowl says:

...you can't put things in the dustbin of history if they didn't really exist. Say it once, say it a million times, but Winterval wasn't a way of taking Christianity out of Christmas. Say it loud, say it long, say it dressed as a Christmas turkey with a giant Nativity scene stuffed up your jacksy; it doesn't matter...

It's depressing. No-one's trying to ban Christmas, for fear of offending minorities, or anything like that. Must we go through this every single year? Oh, we must. 'Christmas is banned' is as much of a Christmas tradition as granny falling asleep in front of Where Eagles Dare after scoffing the Milk Tray, it seems.

PCC rejects complaints about 'bacon smell offends Muslims' story

Last month, the Mail reported that a cafe in Stockport will have to remove its extractor fan 'because the smell of...frying bacon 'offends' Muslims'.

This wasn't true.

The fan has to be removed because the cafe owners (one of whom is Muslim) were refused planning permission for it. Moreover, the only person who officially complained about the smell during the planning application process was a member of the non-Muslim family who lived next door to the cafe.

Three people complained to the PCC about the story - versions of which also appeared in the Metro and Telegraph - but it has rejected the complaints. Apparently, despite the Mail saying the fan was being 'torn down' because 'the smell of frying bacon 'offends' Muslims' the PCC says:

readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission.

Here's the full PCC ruling :

The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.

While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.

The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.

However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.

While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

(Hat-tip to Dave, one of the complainants)

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has written an excellent post which points out that the vast majority of the 544 comments that appeared on the Mail's article were written by people who had clearly been 'misled' - despite the PCC saying that 'would not' happen. He writes:

The articles were clearly prejudicial because the headlines and intros were misleading. The end result was to feed anti-Muslim bigotry.

To build a story based on one man's unsupported statement when it involves the delicate matter of religious intolerance shows a reckless disregard for the pubic interest and social cohesion.

In the PCC's opinion, "the body of the articles" in the Mail and Telegraph made the situation "clear."

Come off it! The papers did not run this story because it involved the removal of an extractor fan. They ran it because it fitted their own anti-Muslim agendas.

Royal Mail hasn't banned religion

Minority Thought has posted on the latest nonsense about Christmas and Christianity being under attack which has appeared in the Sunday Express:


The headline is, as Minority Thought points out, 'absurd' but it is just the latest example of the word 'ban' being thrown around completely incorrectly.

It doesn't take much to work out that Royal Mail has little power to actually 'ban religion'. The story doesn't actually say this, claiming instead that religious images have been 'banned' from this year's Christmas stamps:

Church leaders are furious with Royal Mail bosses who ditched Christian images on Christmas stamps in favour of children’s favourites Wallace and Gromit.

Last night, the Archbishop of Canterbury was being asked to take action, just two days before the stamps go on sale.

But as the very next paragraph of David Paul's article makes clear:

The plasticine stars of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit will appear on seven different stamps but those wanting a religious theme have only one choice, the image of the Madonna and Child that has been on sale for the past three years.

Ah. So religious images haven't been 'banned' or 'ditched' from this year's stamps? No:

A Royal Mail spokeswoman said: “We have distributed tens of millions of the Madonna and Child stamps to go on sale alongside the Wallace and Gromit stamps.”

How the Express turns 'distributing tens of millions' of something into a 'ban' is something the PCC may want to look at.

Even the Daily Mail, which has been angry about secular Christmas stamps in the past, weren't complaining when they reported on the Wallace and Gromit stamps in September:

The animated inventor, whose gadgets never quite work according to plan, and his long-suffering dog, will be delivering their brand of humour from the envelopes of millions of Christmas cards...

But stamps featuring the Madonna and child are also on sale.

And what of the Express' claim that 'church leaders are furious'? Well, as usual, they use the word 'fury' when the shouldn't. And the article only quotes one person who isn't happy - a 'team rector' from a small village in Wiltshire (population: 1,213). So not leaders, plural.

The Express also claims:

Critics claim the switch to Wallace and Gromit...is a cynical bid by Royal Mail bosses to boost profits and ignores the true meaning of Christmas.

It doesn't say who these 'critics' are. But the Express knows - because this fuss about stamps seems to come up every year - that the Royal Mail have alternated between themes for several years:

Royal Mail’s policy for Christmas stamps is to alternate non-secular and secular themes. The 2009 stamps showed the nativity as depicted in stained glass windows from the Pre-Raphaelite era and in 2010 a secular theme is featured.

To provide choice for customers, the popular 1st and 2nd Class Madonna and Child stamps, first issued in 2007, will also be available.

Indeed, in 2008 the main stamps carried a pantomime theme but as the Royal Mail explained at the time:

Customers will be able to purchase stamps depicting two classic, iconic paintings - the Madonna of Humility by Lippo di Dalmasio and Madonna and Child by William Dyce. The Madonna of Humility features on the 1st Class stamp and Madonna and Child on the 2nd Class.

So the Express have produced a totally misleading headline and made claims about a 'ban' which is clearly shown to be false later in the article. They also over-state the amount, and the strength, of the criticism.

But one person leaving a comment on the Express website hasn't understood any of that:

The Winterval stories begin...

The tabloids have, predictably, leapt on the Pope's remarks in Westminster Hall that:

‘There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.’

It is not, and never has been, clear who those 'those' actually are, or who the Pope is battling to save Christmas from.

But it's a line the Mail and its ilk have been spinning for years - and they're not likely to stop now the Pope has repeated it.

On the Sky News paper preview on Friday night, Mail columnist John McEntee used the old urban myth about 'Birmingham renaming Christmas 'Winterval'' as Exhibit A.

Over in today's Express, Gary Nicks begins his article with:

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday made an impassioned plea for Britain to return to its Christian values and condemned the “politically correct brigade” who dismiss Christmas.

See what he did there? Put 'politically correct brigade' in quote marks to make it appear that the Pope actually used those very words.

He didn't.

Nicks goes on:

In recent years there have been cases of schools cancelling Christmas Nativity plays for fear of offending non-Christians and ­replacing them with winterval festivals.

He doesn't provide any specific examples of 'schools' doing these things.

In the Star, Emily Hall writes:

Speaking to a packed Westminster Hall in London, he urged people to turn their backs on the use of words like “Winterval” to describe the festival of Jesus’s birth.

She writes this despite the fact the Pope didn't actually use the word 'Winterval' and didn't say anything about the 'use of words' to describe Christmas.

Meanwhile, the Sun's James Clench says the Pope:

let rip at the politically correct knuckleheads who deem [Christmas] offensive to other faiths...

He urged his VIP audience to use their "respective spheres of influence" to help turn back a tide that has seen Christmas renamed Winterval.

Quite how his audience can turn back a tide that doesn't exist is hard to say.

But how many more times are these lazy 'journalists' going to trot out this Winterval nonsense before they accept that it is 'bollocks'?

Perhaps the most notorious of the anti-Christmas rebrandings is Winterval, in Birmingham, and when you telephone the Birmingham city council press office to ask about it, you are met first of all with a silence that might seasonably be described as frosty.

"We get this every year," a press officer sighs, eventually. "It just depends how many rogue journalists you get in any given year. We tell them it's bollocks, but it doesn't seem to make much difference."

According to an official statement from the council, Winterval - which ran in 1997 and 1998, and never since - was a promotional campaign to drive business into Birmingham's newly regenerated town centre. It began in early November and finished in January.

During the part of that period traditionally celebrated as Christmas, "there was a banner saying Merry Christmas across the front of the council house, Christmas lights, Christmas trees in the main civil squares, regular carol-singing sessions by school choirs, and the Lord Mayor sent a Christmas card with a traditional Christmas scene wishing everyone a Merry Christmas".

How dare these 'politically correct knuckleheads' ban Christmas in such a way.

The Mail and 'hate campaigns'

On the front of today's Daily Mail, Stephen Fry was singled out as leading an 'atheist hate campaign' against the Pope's visit to Britain.

They may well be holding a grudge over Fry's tweeting about the Jan Moir incident, maybe it's just the usual smears and misinformation from the paper.

Either way, the claim is totally bogus and an editorial which labels him and others 'self-satisfied' is beyond parody.

Fry has written an excellent, eloquent response in which he says:

It is the final proof, if proof were needed, that the Daily Mail is not just actually wicked (intentionally, knowingly lying) but actually now quite, quite mad.

He adds:

I can always be certain that I have done a good thing when out of all the descriptions they can choose, their leader writers select “quizmaster”. “What has this country come to,” they want to know, “when an egregious, self-satisfied quizmaster presumes to make moral pronouncements on a two thousand year old institution etc etc.”

As it happens I have spent many many more hours of my life as a writer and a journalist than as a “quizmaster”, yet, oddly enough, we don’t read the Mail coming up with: “What has this country come to when a journalist presumes to make moral pronouncements on a two thousand year old etc.?” Perhaps the Mail leader writer would be kind enough to explain to the world what qualifications are needed to allow one to express an opinion, or write a letter to a newspaper? What profession should one belong to and can we have a list of those which in fact disbar us from expressing one’s views?

As for his 'hate campaign':

I was one of 50 signatories to a letter that called into question the official state nature of the papal visit. I didn’t write the letter, but am proud to stand behind it and with my fellow signatories.

Otherwise my “hate campaign”, as they well know, begins with the words, “I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…” it is, as I go on to say, none of my business. I go out of my way to make it clear that I fully respect the desire of the pious, the faithful and the devout to welcome their spiritual father, their supreme Pontiff.

So saying you have 'no objection to the Pope visiting' is what the Mail calls leading a hate campaign.

Frankly, when it comes to 'hate campaigns', that doesn't really qualify and it's certainly not in the Mail's league.

Take the Mail's ongoing attempts to bring down the BBC.

In amongst their coverage of the Pope's visit was a short article gleefully reporting comments from Mark Pritchard MP:

The Tory, who is vice chairman of the parliamentary group for the Holy See, said the BBC had displayed a form of 'blatant, anti-Christian bias'.

He said he was fed up with wall-to-wall reports of the how the church was supposedly in decline.

The BBC's main bulletins have also led with debates on the Vatican's response to child abuse and homosexuality.

The Tory MP for the Wrekin also questioned why there were no positive stories about the church. 'The Catholic Church is an imperfect institution but it is amazing the BBC has found nothing positive to say about a church whose key message is to love thy neighbour including feeding the poor and helping the homeless,' he said. '

The coverage of the church ahead of the Pope's visit so far shows yet more evidence of institutional Christianaphobia at the heart of the BBC.'

Quite where this 'institutional Christianaphobia' has been today as the BBC fills its News Channel with blanket coverage of the Pope's activities is hard to say.

There's also no evidence of the Mail questioning Pritchard about these views - why would it?

But could Pritchard point to the copious amounts of articles about the Catholic Church 'feeding the poor and helping the homeless' in, for example, the Mail? Or in any other national newspaper? Or on any other national broadcaster?

In this twelve sentence article, the BBC is mentioned seven times.

Compare that to another article in today's Mail, about newly-crowned Britain's Amateur Scientist of the Year, Ruth Brooks. The contest was a:

BBC search to find the country's best amateur scientist.

Yet while acknowledging the search was done for Radio 4's Material World (five sentences from the end of the story), the Mail doesn't mention the BBC once in the entire 500-word article. Indeed, it appears (from the URL) that a reference to the BBC in the headline has been removed.

Consider also the DVD giveaway that the Mail has been running all week. It has been trying to flog copies of the paper by tempting readers with episodes of Sir David Attenborough's series Life.

The Mail has called the series 'fantastic' and 'glorious'. Yet it has completely forgotten to mention it's a BBC programme.

The Mail certainly named the BBC in its front page on Tuesday, when it reported on possible strike action by employees at the Beeb.

It was a front page lead in stark contrast to its absolutely minimal coverage of the new claims in the News of the World phone-hacking case. Apparently, the Mail is less interested in the allegations of possible illegality among tabloid journalists.

But the BBC splash was typically overblown.

The front page sub-head said:

Strikers plan to black out Cameron's key conference speech.

The first paragraph of the article repeated this claim. Yet a few sentences later the paper admitted:

It is thought the corporation would still be able to put together coverage of the events.

Which is an interesting definition of 'black out'.

So, a final word about the Mail from Stephen Fry:

Because I have a theological turn of mind, the people I feel most sorry for, and always have, are those who work for the paper.

I have never met a Mail journalist whose first words weren’t an apology. “We’re not all Paul Dacre types…” they mournfully beg us to believe. Well, leave before it’s too late!

Just imagine that there really is a St Peter to greet you after death. Suppose he asks what you did with your life, your mind, your heart, your whole being and your immortal soul and that you have to reply you that wrote for the Daily Mail.

(hat-tip to Andrew Smith)

Respect

Hard as it is to believe, the Daily Star has actually had news about the election on its front page every day for the last week.

And no, it hasn't been 'Jordan votes for this' or 'Cheryl supports that'-type coverage:


Like most of the Star's reporting, it's probably written for three-year-olds, but hey, at least it's not Kerry Katona.

Today, the Star had David Cameron and Nick Clegg on the front (calling them Ant and Dec, the same comparison used by Jan Moir...), but it chose another story for its lead:


The headline doesn't make much sense, but then the article is rubbish anyway. As is the Star's 'Exclusive' tag, given that the story was in the Sun and on the Mail website the previous day.

Originally, the Mail gave their article this misleading headline:

Parents' outrage as children told 'dress as a Muslim for mosque trip - or you will be branded a truant'.

But this has now been changed - and softened - to Catholic school girl who refused headscarf for mosque trip labelled a truant.

Why? Because the school wasn't forcing anyone to 'dress as a Muslim'.

The story is this: Ellesmere Port Catholic High School has organised a trip to a local mosque for its Year 9 pupils. They were told, in a letter helpfully published by the Mail:

Pupils will be expected to wear full school uniform. As you can appreciate the Mosque has a strict dress code, all girls must have a skirt that is over the knee and must wear a headscarf (a simple scarf that covers the head will suffice).

Does a Catholic school's uniform, with a simple scarf over the head added, really sound like pupils were being forced to 'dress as a Muslim'?

Apparently it does to Nick Seaton from the rent-an-outrage-quote Campaign for Real Education:

'Everyone should respect the religion of others but to expect a pupil to dress up to this extent is extreme to say the least. It is ridiculous'.

'Dress up to this extent'? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about.

Anyway, when one mother - Michelle Davies - complained, she was told by the headteacher that this was a compulsory field trip and if her daughter did not go, it would be recorded as an unauthorised absence.

And because she didn't like that, it seems she went running to the papers to become a martyr to the cause.

Davies is quoted as saying:

'I wasn't having my daughter dressed in the Muslim way...

'I also fail to see how a three-hour trip to a mosque is of any educational value to a Catholic when she can learn about the Muslim faith in the classroom'.

And from the Star:

Another parent, Kirsty Ashworth, whose daughter Charlie Sheen was due to attend, said: 'I send my daughter to an English-speaking Catholic school, so I don’t see why she should be forced to dress as a Muslim.'

Which, of course, she wasn't. Frankly, both parents sound as if an educational trip such as this would do both of them some good. Who really sounds like the intolerant party here?

But the Star isn't content with its inflammatory and misleading story - its editorial goes much, much further:

The headmaster...tried to force Amy to wear a Muslim-style headscarf.

It's disgusting. Everyone involved should hang their head in shame.

Amy is a Catholic. Her beliefs should be respected.

Demanding she ditch her faith for Islam is the ultimate religious insult.

Errr, what? Where has the Star invented the line that she was being forced to 'ditch her faith'?

This was about schoolkids on a trip to a mosque covering their heads. How did it become 'demanding' someone convert to Islam?

That line really is an utter disgrace.

As several of the people leaving (surprisingly tolerant) comments on the Mail website point out, on their trips to synagogues, St Mark's Basilica in Venice and St Peter's in Rome and so on, coverings for shoulders, arms and/or heads were required attire for visitors. Most people remove hats without complaint when entering a Christian church. Yet there's no similar 'outrage' about that.

But because this involves Islam, there is.

The tabloids want to claim this is another example of political correctness gone mad, of Muslims dictating what the rest of 'us' can do, of Christians under attack.

What it's actually about is people being asked to show respect in a place of worship.

Why is that so problematic?

The 'World's Greatest Newspaper' won't win a British Press Award again this year

The nominations for the British Press Awards have been announced.

Unsurprisingly, the Telegraph leads the field (with 19 nominations) after its coverage of MPs' expenses.

The Guardian (17 nominations), The Sunday Times (15), The Times (13), Daily Mail (12) and the Mail on Sunday (11) follow.

There's also a handful of nominations each for the Mirror, Independent, Sun and FT.

In fact, only two national daily newspapers failed to get a single nomination: the Daily Star and the Daily Express. Richard Desmond, who owns both, must be so proud.

The Sunday Express got one nod, for the story about Jacqui Smith putting her husband's porn film on her expenses. But that's as good as it gets.

Because the Express, Star and their Sunday versions didn't get a single nomination in 2009 either.

And it was the same story in 2008.

And, ahem, 2007.

So only one nomination for Richard Desmond's dreadful rags in four years.

And yet the Express continues to call itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' on its masthead every day. Its circulation is collapsing, it serves up a daily diet of hate and lies and the complete lack of any nominations in these awards means it becomes increasingly hard to understand how they are allowed to make this obviously bogus claim.

Elsewhere, it was pleasing to see the Express' Paul Thomas was left off the cartoon shortlist.

But best of all, the complete failure of any of the nasty columnists at the Mail to get a single mention. No Littlejohn. No Moir. No Platell. No Melanie Phillips. No Liz Jones. No Allison Pearson.

Wonderful.

Not quite so wonderful is the somewhat surprising nomination for the Mail's 'Science' Editor Michael Hanlon in the 'Specialist journalist' category. This is the man who once wrote:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

Does one?

Even worse is the inclusion of Kelvin MacKenzie on the Columnist shortlist. MacKenzie is so highly valued by the Sun - despite his lies about Hillsborough - that they don't put his columns on their website.

Here's a flavour of his work. On 11 February he wrote about the Muslim bus driver who had stopped his bus in order to pray. Last time the Sun wrote this story about a different driver it cost them £30,000. But to MacKenzie, the latest incident was evidence that them Muslims were taking over - solely because the driver had not been sacked. He wrote:

So why wasn't he fired on the spot? It seems there is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.

And when he says 'them' we can safely assume he's not talking about bus drivers.

No, he's talking about Muslims who, he seems to be admitting, aren't really meant to be reading the Sun. They're not one of 'us'. Such language if often used by right-wing tabloids and serves only to divide people, to build barriers, to cause tension.

It's hugely depressing to see newspapers talk of 'them and us' in this way. And it's equally depressing that such talk gets rewarded with award nominations.

Who are the zealots? (cont.)

The Mail on Sunday reported yesterday, with very little fanfare, that Olive Jones, the 'teacher sacked for offering to pray for sick girl' has got her 'job back'.

(The full background to this story can be read in an earlier post here.)

Like the original article back in December, yesterday's was also written by Jonathan Petre.

He has repeated the lie she was sacked, he has repeated the lie this was only about an offer to pray, does not retract the 'prayer was bullying' claim, he has not spoken to the family, nor to Jones' employers and has once again given Jones the platform to play the victim. He even conveniently forgets to mention the girl has leukaemia and is the real victim here.

It's just more agenda-first, facts-last journalism.

More than ever it is now clear that she was never truly 'sacked' - simply that her services (which only amounted to 12 hours per week in any case) were not being used while a serious complaint about her was investigated.

And a family complaining that she was upsetting their leukaemia-stricken daughter with inappropriate religious talk during maths lessons is a serious complaint.

And now it has been investigated, she is back to her job much as before (or she should be - the Council have said they have offered her further work but, curiously, she has not yet accepted this offer).

Petre does not say whether Jones will be returning to teach the girl whose parents made the complaint - the Council have not said anything on that either - but you would suspect she won't be. And Petre wouldn't want to say that, just in case it makes Jones look like she did something wrong.

Which she did.

He also fails to mention that Jones was repeatedly droning on about her belief in a 'miracle' which she thinks saved her when she was a teenager. It was astonishingly inappropriate for her to talk about that in front of this very sick girl and it is sad that the 'prayer offer' became the focus. But inevitably it did because it was easy and made the whole thing sound ridiculous - and so many unthinking, unquestioning people believed that was all there was to the story.

Jones makes some telling remarks:

'I wouldn’t have been able to do it without The Mail on Sunday.'

At the time of the original article, the Council made clear they were waiting to meet with Jones. But rather than arrange a meeting, Jones instead ran off to the Christian Legal Centre (who had gone through this before with the nurse Caroline Petrie case), in the belief that getting media attention with some one-sided, sympathetic coverage may help her with the investigation. Hopefully, the Council have not been bullied into this decision for fear of a media backlash.

She claims again she was unaware of the family's unhappiness with her expressing her religious beliefs, despite this being directly contradicted by what the mother said:

'Mrs Jones was employed to teach maths but used every opportunity to discuss religion, despite the fact I made it clear we were a non-religious family and didn't want to talk about these issues in this way...

'The sessions with Mrs Jones became increasingly traumatic and we decided it was not appropriate for this woman to come to my home.'

But Jones also says:

'Had I known [about the complaint] I would never have offered to pray'.

Which sounds like she is admitting it was inappropriate if the parents had said 'no' - which they, of course, said they did.

The Council talk about what is appropriate in their statement:

we agreed together that it can be appropriate for a teacher or tutor to offer to share their faith with a pupil or family. However, a careful professional judgement needs to be made as to whether this is appropriate and indeed acceptable to the person or family concerned. Olive also agreed that she would respect either the wishes of a family and/or guidance from a manager not to discuss faith matters with a particular pupil or family.

So no banning of religion. Just Jones being told there's a time and a place, and 'no' really does mean 'no'.

It's quite telling to look at the coverage of this new development, which was posted on the Mail website on Saturday night. No other media outlet appears to have covered it until Monday afternoon when the BBC, PA and a blog on the Guardian website mentioned it.

Yet there were scores of misleading, inaccurate, sloppy articles that appeared soon after the original, relying solely on the Mail on Sunday's dubious claims.

Almost none of them will be corrected, and it seems very few people will follow up to explain she still has her job.

But the fact that Jones still has her job isn't news. It doesn't fit the 'PC gone mad, Christians under attack' agenda that so many people mindlessly believe in despite there being almost no serious evidence to support it.

The Mail on Sunday's original editorial spoke of the:

fundamental problem, the slow takeover of this country by politically correct zealots

Given Jones is still teaching, how's that 'takeover' by 'zealots' going?