MailOnline clarifies story on Dale Farm lawyers

In November, an article published by the MailOnline carried the headline:

Dale Farm lawyers scoop MASSIVE £6m of taxpayers' money to fund gypsies' legal battle

Last week, the PCC announced that following a complaint from Dr Keith Lomax of law firm Davies Gore Lomax, the Mail had added the following correction to the article:

A previous version of this article said that lawyers for the Dale Farm Travellers had "scooped" £6million of taxpayers' money to fund the Travellers' legal battle and that Davies Gore Lomax "pocketed more than £1.1 million in legal aid in 2008", and "then received a further £1.1 million last year". We also reported that Dr Lomax, the founding partner of the law firm, had stated that the work the firm did for Gypsies only made up a tiny "fraction" of their lucrative business.

We are happy to clarify that the £6million referred to was for the entirety of the firm's legal aid costs from 2006 until October 2011 including court fees, expenses, and VAT. The work the firm did for the Dale Farm Travellers was only a fraction of the firm's legal aid funded work. Dr Lomax did not say that the firm's work was a lucrative business. We regret any distress caused by the original story.

It has also changed the headline, which now reads: 'Revealed: How lawyers acting for Dale Farm gypsies have scooped £6m of taxpayers' money in the last five years'.

They eat horses, don't they?

On 27 September, The Sun reported:

The story was based on a Freedom of Information request from the paper and followed up by the Telegraph and the Mail.

The Sun's 'exclusive' by Tom Wells began:

Whitehall chiefs paid a PR firm £45,000 to teach gypsies about an EU rule asking people to promise not to EAT their horses. 

However, while the Sun and Mail articles are still live, the Telegraph's has been deleted. Why?

Well, it might have something to do with this statement put out by the 'Whitehall chiefs' at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

Myth bust: Marketing campaign on Horse Identification rules

The myth: The Sun and Daily Telegraph have suggested that Defra funded a marketing campaign to ask travellers not to eat their own horses.

The truth: It was nothing to do with eating horses. The campaign explained changes to EU rules which meant owners needed to have their foals and any previously unidentified horses micro-chipped when they applied for horse passports. This was to improve disease control and help prevent the export of contaminated meat. No part of the campaign involved asking the owners to promise not to eat horse meat.

How the anti-immigration agenda works

The Mail was running this story prominently on its website earlier today, the latest in a torrent of recent anti-immigration stories from the paper:


Although the Mail didn't name the girl, she was named in the Sun, Star and Express versions of the same story.

The Sun said:

A gang of immigrant yobs who molested a girl of 14 escaped prosecution - because it was 'not in the public interest'.

Ria George was 'mauled' by eight Slovakian gipsies aged between eight and 12.

The Star, under the headline 'Migrant gipsy boys mauled me but the courts did nothing' said:

A gang of gipsy boys who molested a 14-year-old girl have escaped prosecution because it is 'not in the public interest' to take them to court.

Ria George was walking to a pal’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakians, aged between eight and 12, who 'mauled' her in the street.

The Express went with 'No justice for girl molested by migrants':

A schoolgirl who was molested by a gang of east European boys says she has been 'treated like a liar' by the justice system, which has refused to prosecute her attackers.

Ria George was walking to a friend’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakian louts who groped, touched and humiliated her in the street.

Several things stand out.

One is the prominence of the (alleged) offenders' (alleged) migrant status and/or race.

The Mail says they are from 'Slovakian gipsy' and 'Romany migrant' families who 'settled in the city [Coventry] in the late 1990s', although it's not clear how the paper knows this.

After all, if that timeline is right and if some of the boys are eight, they were probably born in the UK and aren't migrants at all.

So are they definitely Gypsies? Over at Mailwatch, 5CC reports that:

a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said.

This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.

Secondly, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to have gone out of the window. It would be surprising if this wasn't related to the boys (allegedly) being migrants/Gypsies.

Thirdly, having made clear their view that this attack was definitely committed by migrants/Gypsies, the papers heavily imply that it is because they are migrants/Gypsies that the CPS is not moving forward with the case.

The CPS are accused of 'refusing' to prosecute because it would not be in the 'public interest'. This allowed a flood of comments to appear on the Mail website to complain about 'one rule for 'them'' and other such unpleasant, but predictable, views.

But later in the day, a slightly different view emerged from the CPS, although it was ignored by the nationals. The Evening Telegraph in Peterborough reported:

A gang of boys arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Coventry did not face charges because of a lack of evidence, prosecutors said...

The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two "tests" outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

He said: "The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

"If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test - the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.

"In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered."

Why is it this version is only reported in the local media?

Indeed, in the Coventry Telegraph's report on the case, there is no mention of the boys' race at all. So why did that become the focus when the story hit the four right-wing national tabloids?

And did they report on the case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

Well, the CPS also announced today that they would not prosecute anyone in the case of James Parkes, the trainee PC who was left with a fractured skull after being subject to a homophobic attack.

Why?:

Detectives arrested 15 youths during the inquiry but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now decided there is insufficient evidence to charge them.

So two assaults and two cases where the CPS doesn't prosecute because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

But the one allegedly committed by migrants/Gypsies gets reported in four anti-immigrant national newspapers.

The one committed by people of unknown race, where the victim is a gay man, gets ignored by those same four national newspapers.

So, that question again: did they report on the first case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

(For another take on the story, please read 5CC's article over at Mailwatch)

Mail and Sun apologise but why won't the Telegraph?

On 14 May, the Sun, Mail and Telegraph published articles claiming a gang of Gypsies has smashed up a Surrey Police helicopter in revenge for surveillance flights over their camp.

Even then it seemed dubious - the stories quoted a police spokesman saying the identity of the vandals was 'unknown'.

So, two months later, it was hardly surprising when The Sun printed a retraction:

Surrey Police have not blamed gipsies for an attack on their force's helicopter, no staff in their operations rooms were threatened by gipsies and no gipsy site was being targeted for a raid as we reported on May 14. We apologise for the mistakes and are happy to set the record straight.

At the time, this blog questioned why the Mail and Telegraph hadn't published this too, as they had made the same claims.

Well, on 9 November, an apology crept out on the Mail website ('due prominence' indeed...).

Given that the wording is identical, where is the sense in the Sun apologising after two months, but the Mail taking nearly six to do the same?

Moreover, why is it that the Telegraph's article by Ben Leach is still available? Especially when the Telegraph even admit their article is all 'according to The Sun newspaper'?

So while the Sun's story has been retracted, Leach's re-write - based solely on that now withdrawn article - remains online.

This is an absurd situation which, unsurprisingly, reflects poorly on the PCC. Surely it can't be too difficult for them to do the following:

1. If, as in this case, several newspapers print the same lies, and the PCC then brokers a retraction on one of those articles, the PCC should be pro-active in ensuring the other versions are also removed and an apology published.

2. If the original story was trailed on a newspaper homepage, the apology/retraction/clarification should be trailed there as well.

Would that be so difficult?

Two readers write...

Nick emails to point out this comment on the latest Littlejohn column, which has led to the following comment being left on the messageboard:

I am 79 years old John and I look forward to reading your articles. As for Mandelson, well done John you've said it all.

This Government is so out of touch with the real world, yes John they live in their own world.

Keep up the good work John.

Plenty are with you, you and the Daily Mail keep us all sane.

- Gregory Battell, New Eltham London, 18/8/2009 18:24

He looks forward to reading the articles so much, he doesn't know the author's name? That says plenty about the intelligence of the people who love Littlejohn.

But also - how is it comments like this get through and comments asking where Littlejohn gets his 'robberies done by Eastern Europeans' 'fact' from, don't.

More than that, how does this get a positive rating of 32?


Regular reader Kit also wrote to highlight this Mac cartoon from the 19 August Mail:

"A gipsy encampment in your village? Appalling! Would anyone like some lucky heather, clothes pegs or their fortune told?"

Because councils behave as if they are run by Gypsies, see? Except they don't because if they did, councils would provide the legal sites they are meant to. And it indulges in the same Gypsy stereotypes that Littlejohn did a few columns ago. Except they forgot the tarmacing.

Littlejohn discusses immigration, Muslims, gays and Gypsies for a change

Jonathan at No Sleep Til Brooklands has done a great job at picking apart Littlejohn's latest useless, dispiriting column.

Today, he's written about the National Trans Police Association (which includes his obligatory reference to homosexuality) and complained about how divisive they, and their Black, Pagan and Gay Police Association colleagues are, without, Jonathan points out, mentioning the Christian Police Association. Funny that.

He's also written about Travellers (twice in four days!) and claims he doesn't 'do' 'gippophobia', a term which surely is as - ahem - 'gippophobic' as the term 'pikey' he used on Tuesday.

He goes on to have a go at Muslims, immigration control and foreign criminials.

Stop me if you've heard it before.

But he includes three particularly startling statements:

1. 'I merely report the facts'.

Hmmm. The 'facts' as they have been reported in the Mail and fit your agenda, you mean? Remember this 'fact' from Tuesday:

£4.7million of Lottery money has been spent helping travellers to subvert the planning laws.

Wasn't a 'fact' then, isn't a fact now.

Or how about the 'fact' he said Judge Trigger was telling the 'truth'. Not to mention all those 'facts' about Gypsies and the NHS. And others, if I could be bothered to find them.

2. 'I only ever criticise people for what they DO, not what they are'.

No comment really, except he seems to think that what people are is a general indicator of what they do (Muslims = terrorists, gays = perverts and brainwashers of children, asylum seekers = scroungers).

3. 'Most of the robberies in this country have been carried out by Eastern European gangs'.

What, ever? Is this one of those 'facts' he only ever reports. We all know how unreliable these 'foreigners are responsible for this amount of crime' claims are. So where does this little gem come from?

Mail and Littlejohn can't work out why Gypsies need project to overcome prejudice

Jonathan at No Sleep Til Brooklands has expressed a view I felt a little earlier when I read Littlejohn's latest column which is no more than a horrendous anti-Gypsy rant. 'I'd go through it,' Jonathan says, 'but I can't actually stand to read any of it again'.

I know how he feels. But I'll do my best. But to start with, another anti-Gypsy story from today's Mail. The heart sinks when you read a headline such as How gipsies got £5m of Lottery cash to beat planning rules... and fund course on assertiveness training. Why? Because firstly, you know it's rubbish, and secondly, you know every Mail reader will believe it and launch into more anti-Gypsy, 'this country isn't our own any more' bullshit.

But anyone with functioning rational brain cells would take one look at that headline and think this: how would the Lottery fund 'beating planning laws' because that would mean breaking the law. Answer: they wouldn't.

When you scroll down to see the list of projects that has been funded, you see number one is the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group's 'Training to understand planning policies'.

So 'understanding planning policies' is learning how to 'beat' them?

Well no, of course not. Here's the actual project description:

The Traveller community will better understand and contribute to planning policies that affect their way of life. They will meet planners and policy makers at seminars and forums to discuss issues including housing needs and resolving general misunderstanding and mistrust of authorities.

Does that sound like teaching them to 'beat' planning laws? No, of course not. And how is that problematic? Surely the Mail wants Gypsies and Travellers to engage with planners?

In fact, looking at the list of projects, it is hard to see how any of them could be in any way controversial - learning about community involvement, health and education advice, advice on housing and employment, among others.

The Mail sniffs as well at a media training project, despite publishing two articles in one day which prove why the Gypsy point of view needs to be put into the media far more.

As always, key information is left to the end of the story. Here's a spokesman from the Big Lottery Fund:

From June 2004 to February 2009, Big has made awards totalling £4.76million to initiatives that have benefited gipsies and travellers. This is equivalent to 0.2 per cent of the fund's good cause funding.

So all this fuss, and dozens of abusive comments about Gypsies and the Lottery over 0.2% of the fund? The Government also gets attacked, eventhough they do not administer the fund, but Mail readers like to blame them for everything anyway. The spokesman goes on:

Recent research has shown that only an estimated 20 per cent of 11 to 16-year-olds from the gipsy and traveller population attend secondary school and 68 per cent had experienced racism or prejudice because they were a traveller.

Being on the end of anti-Gypsy prejudice? Surely that's not a problem...is it?

Well yes, and Littlejohn then shows even more prejudice than the lottery story. Are you sitting comfortably? Let's go tarmacking with Teabag, Tess and Toby focuses on a new reading book for seven year olds which aims to promote tolerance of Gypsies and Travellers.

You would think anything that is aimed at teaching kids about tolerance of others would be welcomed, but when it comes for Gypsies, immigrants or homosexuals, the Mail doesn't want to know.

Tess is a single mum, of Toby; Teabag is their dog. Littlejohn laments the lack of a father figure and then claims he is:

surprised that they didn't make Tess a lesbian, who became pregnant by artificial insemination using sperm donated by a transgendered friend.

If you're playing 'Littlejohn bingo', mark off the totally irrelevant reference to homosexuals. It's frankly astonishing he didn't make a crude reference to the dog being called Teabag.

Anyway, he gets into his stride with a torrent of anti-Gypsy stereotypes. The headline covered the tarmacking thing (which also made the headline of the NHS story). Underage marriage?

Tess would be married, probably from the age of 14. Travellers are one of the last bastions of both the nuclear and extended family.

Gypsies are all thieves?:

In a nod to accuracy, Tess makes her money at car boot sales, although the stories don't elaborate on where she gets her merchandise. Car boot sales are notorious for the disposal of stolen property.

They all claim benefits and don't pay tax?:

Here in the real world, Tess would be claiming welfare benefits while pocketing the cash without declaring it to the taxman....once they've arrived in England...a buffet of benefits is laid before them.

The all drive 4x4s?:

She would be driving a £50,000 Toyota Landcruiser (running on red agricultural diesel) with a stolen lawn-mower in the boot; living on either an illegal camp site or in a subsidised council house; and running a Tarmacking gang.

Gypsy kids are filthy?:

Toby wouldn't look like one of the gang from Scooby Doo. He'd be a snot-nosed scruff begging outside the local pound shop, accompanied by Teabag, a snarling, mangy mutt on a piece of string, rather than a playful contender for Crufts.

He goes on to call them troublemakers and criminals who shoplift, carry guns, leave rubbish behind them...and on and on.

With no apparent hint of irony he then says:

Over the past few years, travellers have been transformed into a protected species, their lifestyle subsidised and proselytised. They are treated as an oppressed ethnic minority

Yes, well what other groups (outside of Muslims and immigrants) does Littlejohn write about in this way? Who else does he call untrustworthy unwashed criminals? He even uses the word 'pikeys' which is the type of nasty insult that is in the same category as other insults he almost certainly wouldn't use.

He also claims:

£4.7million of Lottery money has been spent helping travellers to subvert the planning laws.

Which wasn't even true for the £190,000 project the earlier Mail story mentioned, let alone all £4.7 million.

When the Mail reported on these reading books a few days ago, it added where the money had come from to pay for them:

The books, which are recommended by the charity The Children's Society, were paid for by a grant from the Lloyds TSB Foundation. The bank is 43 per cent state owned after the Government bailed it out with millions of pounds of public money.

See what it did there? It's your money paying for this pro-Gypsy propaganda, so get angry.

And of course, Littlejohn and all the ignorant sheep danced to the tune exactly as the Mail intended and, of course, wanted.

Socially acceptable racism

The Mail has made some changes to a story that first appeared on its website yesterday in a much longer form. It currently goes under the name Jeweller in race probe over his ban on gipsies after string of raids on his shop. The story is of Michael Plant, a jeweller in Altrincham, who put a sign up on the door of his shop reading: 'Sorry, we do not serve Rumanian or East European gypsies', after some shoplifting incidents.

The police warned him that the sign was racist and should be removed. And the Mail sniffs a political-correctness-gone-mad-can't-be-racist-in-your-own-country-any-more-type scandal.

Predictably, 12 of the 13 comments on the story tow the party line: 'I think this poor man is being very restrained in his response to this all too predictable crimewave against him', and 'This is what we have been reduced to in this country. And we are gagged at every corner for speaking the truth'.

The other comment claiming it is racist and offensive to ban a whole group of people is rated -855. But this is one of the main points - would a shop dare put a sign saying 'No blacks' in the window? If he'd had some thefts by women, would he ban all women? Of course not. So why is this one possibly justified? Because Gypsies, like asylum seekers and Muslims, are free to be treated as badly as possible in the right-wing world of the Mail.

But the changes to the story made by the Mail are interesting. It's a good deal shorter and seems to have cut a lot of Plant's statements, which were printed uncritically. Yesterday, the article began 'A respected jeweller', thus immediately making him the good guy. Of course by being subject to shoplifting, he is the victim. But it is noticeable that although the headline claims a 'string of raids' it never clarifies how many times it has actually happened.

And then Plant is quoted saying: 'I have been targeted repeatedly by Eastern European criminals'. So why does his sign ban 'East European Gypsies', or does he believe Gypsies and criminals are interchangeable terms? And as the story makes clear none of the culprits have ever been caught, how does he know they are all Gypsies?

This story is reminiscent of a recent one that made a stir in Bristol. The Evening Post printed a story quoting a dress shop owner in the city at some length:

Mrs Lawson, 57, who suffers from severe arthritis added: "I'm thinking of putting up a sign on the door saying 'no travellers'. I might be targeted again for speaking out but I don't care, I've had enough. Travellers are not welcome in my shop.

Notice her medical condition is mentioned in order to make her seem more sympathetic. But the story goes on:

Mrs Lawson has already put a notice on her shop door saying: "We have been targeted by a certain element. These people have stolen from us for the last time.

"This store will only be open to socially acceptable people not those who expect normal people to pay for their existence."

'Socially acceptable'? It's a horrendous statement, and again, would she ban other races, religions, or sexes if they were to steal from her shop?

Both Bristol Indymedia and eveningpostwatch picked up on the story, and the shop owner dug a significant hole for herself with some nasty comments as she tried to defend herself. She says on the Post's story:

Irish Travellers ... mostly devoid of social graces and behave with the life motto - 'I didn't work for it, but I'm going to steal from someone who did!

But as eveningpostwatch stated:

Note that nowhere in this story is any evidence offered by either the Post or the shopkeeper to back up their claims that the shoplifters are Travellers.

Even if they could prove that they are Travellers it would still not be acceptable to report the story this way; suggesting that shoplifting is an issue specifically related to Travellers and that these people are shoplifting because they are Travellers.

Of course, the editor would tell us that they are just reporting what they’ve been told; that they are not making any assumptions or judgements; that they are just objective reporters. But anyone with any intelligence can see from they way the story is reported that that is a load of bollocks.

In fact, one has to wonder why this is even a story. Would this be a story if there wasn’t the Irish Traveller allegation attached? Would they normally be reporting a couple of cases of shoplifting? How many cases of shoplifting happen in this city every day?

The shop owner responded with a quite remarkable racist rant that included the following:

(1) Most Irish speaking Travellers or 'Traveller types'. smell unclean due to having (a) either less water available or
(b) a desire not to wash
(2) 'My' thieves have ALL had Irish accents
(3) The accompanying children are often bare-footed, unkempt and scruffy with unwiped noses and dirty faces
...
Irish speaking Travellers or 'Traveller types' NEVER look you in the eye
The women ALWAYS ask for smaller sized garments than they actually are, often trying on garments that are 2 sizes too small
The women either have their often long, black hair tied back or have four inch black roots and 'blonde' hair and usually wear enormous, hooped earings plus very high, cheap looking shoes
The women never wear tights, but 95% wear short skirts or shorts that are too small (and too short), most too have too tight t shirts, often with midriff showing
The women ALWAYS choose flashy, sparkly, UNUSUAL clothing for the event they are going to attend. At weddings for example the women all want to look like brides themselves or at least, want to stand out more than others

And on it goes...

The Bristol Evening Post is published by Northcliffe Media which is owned by the Daily Mail & General Trust.

Mail lies on school admissions for Gypsy children

It was almost inevitable that the Mail would turn its attention to the way schools treat Gypsy and Traveller children after its misleading NHS scare story.

So here comes Laura Clark's Gipsy and traveller children get priority at popular state schools. Just reading the story is enough to raise suspicions - unless you are one of those people who believe everything they read in the Mail...

For example, the story never mentions what this guidance is by name and it doesn't even quote extensively from it. What it says is:

They must take in the pupils even if travellers 'are camped on the roadside and may not be here long', according to Government guidance.

And if you Google that quote, you find Aiming High: Raising the Achievement of Gypsy Traveller Pupils - which was written in 2003. Surely they can't be relying on six-year old advice to manufacture anti-Gypsy sentiment?

It's worth revealing the full context of that quote too. It is in the FAQs section, and it says:

Q. A Gypsy Traveller family has requested places at school for their children even though they are camped on the roadside and may not be here long. Do I have to admit them?

A. Yes. They should be admitted on the same basis as any other children. Local Education Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area appropriate to their age, abilities, aptitudes and any special educational needs they might have. This duty applies to children whether they are residing permanently or temporarily in the area and therefore includes Gypsy Traveller children.

'Admitted on the same basis as other children'? Surely that can't be right? Because that would make the Mail story completely...wrong.

It emphasises this in the next answer which says:

There are no special provisions under the Regulations for Gypsy Traveller pupils, who must fall into one of the general categories to become an excepted pupil.

It's also worth noting what the Mail also reveals late in the article:

According to mandatory Government guidance, traveller children must be considered under 'fair access protocols' when they request school places.

These protocols also extend to several other groups, including children of UK service personnel and other Crown Servants, as well as those with special educational needs and young carers.

They also cover youngsters who attended special units for expelled pupils and are now ready to be reintegrated into ordinary schools.

So why is the story not 'Children of troops get priority...'? Or 'Special needs children get priority...'? In fact, if the Mail is admitting they are considered under the same 'protocols' as all those other groups of children, then there clearly is no priority for anyone.

When the document they appear to be quoting says there are 'no special provisions' and Gypsy/Traveller children are 'accepted on the same basis' as others, why is this a story at all?

Mail attacks attempts to improve relations with Gypsies on day terrorised Roma flee country

Two new developments in the case of the Romanians in Belfast.

Overnight, City Church, which gave refuge to the families after they were forced out of their homes, had its door and main windows smashed. The pastor says linking the two events would be 'guesswork' but it would be good guesswork.

Then came news that of the 114 people who were targeted, 100 were going to return to Romania. So not only have they been forced from their homes, they have been forced out of the country.

A deeply depressing state of affairs. One so serious that the Daily Mail can't even be arsed to assign a named journalist to the story, so its byline is 'Daily Mail Reporter', who produces 532 words on it. The Sun doesn't appear to have covered the story at all, while the Express deems it worthy of 308 words.

And it gets even more depressing, because the Mail then dedicates 620 angry words to the story Fury as police force holds party for local gipsies to 'improve relations' with travellers . The idea that the police - or indeed, anyone - might be trying to improve relations between locals and the Gypsy and Traveller community on the day 100 Roma have been forced to flee the country after racist attacks against them enrages the Mail. It's a twisted logic all the Mail's own.

Of course, the 'fury' it mentions in the headline is, as always, not really fury at all. It's the Taxpayers Alliance (who Anton has been chasing) doing their rent-a-quote-fury schtick. Are they really arguing: 'How dare the police spend two thousand pounds trying to improve community relations'?

Coming so soon after stoking anti-Gypsy feeling with its wildly exaggerated 'story' about NHS provision and blaming the Belfast Roma for their plight because they're all criminals, the bile and hate in the Mail's agenda is sickening. As one of the comments left on the story says: 'So not only do these people get health service priority, they're using our money to give them a party. Come on for God's sake, something has to be done'. And that seems to be exactly what the Belfast hate mob thought and it's what the Mail thinks. If they knew how, they should be ashamed.

Mail and BNP and Roma (cont.)

The Mail has done a 'special investigation' on the chasing out of Romanian families from their Belfast homes. The headline, however, rather gives the game away: As hate-filled mobs drive Romanian gipsies out of Ulster, we ask who's REALLY to blame?

And before you can say 'the hate-filled mobs' the Mail has the 'REAL' answer...it's the fault of the Romanians themselves. Because, apparently, they are all criminals - including that five day old baby no doubt - and so deserved it:

Opinion has been inflamed...by the crimes the police and locals agree some of the Roma commit...a wave of petty crime that has swept Belfast over the past two years — the period in which the Roma have arrived.

The crimes, confirmed by police, range from ‘mobbing’ elderly ladies at cashpoint machines, distracting them while they steal cash, to using razor blades to slice the straps of handbags and disappear with possessions before anyone knows.

Roma have also been linked with prostitution and people trafficking.
...
British police said last year that they were struggling to cope with a staggering 800 per cent increase in crimes, such as pickpocketing, committed by Romanians since they started coming to Britain in large numbers.

Now that sounds familiar. Here's an excerpt from the BNP's 17 June press release 'BNP Leader Condemns Belfast Anti-Gypsy Violence and Immigration Policy Which Allows It to Happen':

“We also have to bear in mind that the Gypsy community is notorious for its extremely high rate of criminality and anti-social behaviour. Everyone in Romania and Eastern Europe knows this and it is one reason why their governments are so keen to encourage them to come over here,” Mr Griffin said.

While there are no recent figures available for Gypsy crime in Belfast, British police went on record in February 2008 as saying that they were struggling to cope with an 800 percent rise in crimes committed by Romanian Gypsies in Britain.

Hmm.

Now it goes without saying if there are more members of a certain community, then there is likely to be more crime committed by them. But notice the BNP states there are 'no recent figures for Gypsy crime in Belfast'. And remember the raids on the so-called Fagin gangs which was on the front of the Mail which turned out not to be true, but which nonetheless fed an urban myth?

So all the Mail relies on is heresay from angry locals who say things such as: 'foreigners should be burned out of their f****** homes' and are not challenged on that by the reporter.

Moreover there is also something inherently racists about the way the journalist Andrew Malone quotes one of the Roma: 'Romania no job. Belfast job. But ten persons come. They drink. They broke in the house. They no good.’ Generally speaking, reporters will tidy up ANY quotes they have. But they haven't done it here - as if to emphasize his lack of fluent English. They're not like 'us', see?

Mail helps fuel more anti-Roma attacks

The Guardian is reporting that last night there were further attacks on a Romanian family in Belfast, while the twenty families forced to move yesterday are now in a secret location with an armed guard.

Given the Guardian reports that 'the majority [are] from the Roma community', isn't it just the perfect time to go to the Daily Mail website and see this as the main headline:

Want to see a GP? Gipsies come first as NHS tells doctors that travellers must be seen at once

Googling the story brings up the Daily Mail version first, the Stormfront re-print second. The story is based on a Primary Care Service Framework document on the health of Gypsies and Travellers, that quite rightly points out that:

Gypsies and Travellers have significantly poorer health status and significantly more self-reported symptoms of ill-health than other UK-resident...There is now little doubt that health inequality between the observed Gypsy Traveller population in England and their non-Gypsy counterparts is striking, even when compared with other socially deprived or excluded groups and with other ethnic minorities.

So it only seems right the NHS should react. And given the lifestyle of Gypsies and Travellers, and the likelihood of moving to a new area, it suggests it is important, given their relative poor health, that they are 'wherever possible fast-tracked into primary care services'.

But the Mail insidiously twists this into them being given 'priority' and that they must be 'seen at once'. The report says no such thing. It suggests that:

practices should adopt a policy of not turning away any Gypsy/Traveller who attends without an agreed appointment

but not turning someone away is rather different to claiming they must be seen at once.

And nowhere in the article does the Mail make reference to the 'significantly poorer health status' of Gypsies and Travellers. They do include some comments from the Taxpayers Alliance (their second favourite rent-a-quote gang after Migrationwatch), who states:

The only priority should be how ill someone is, not their politically-correct concerns.

Which is exactly what the guidelines are trying to do - ensure people in poor health get the treatment they need.

The whole article reeks of 'look at these people who aren't like you getting preferential treatment' - if it's not Gypsies, it's immigrants or Muslims. And it's the type of article that (sorry to repeat, again) fuels the agenda of the BNP.

Gypsies smash up helicopter. Or maybe not.

Gypsies smash £5million police helicopter with axes in revenge for 'spy' flights, says the Mail. Gipsy axemen chop up cops' £5million chopper, reveals The Sun. Gypsies trash £5million police helicopter, adds the Telegraph.

Compare those headlines with those from the BBC (Vandals attack police helicopter) and the Get Surrey site Surrey Police helicopter grounded by vandals.

Notice the difference - and the interest from the right-wing papers in using race to identify the perpetrators?

The Mail claims the vandals caused 'tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage' although the BBC report - written two hours - later says: 'A force spokesman said...it was not yet known how much the damage would cost to repair.'

But there is something else that the Mail, Sun and Telegraph claim to know but which appears to be in some doubt. Three lines from the end of the story, the Mail writes: 'A Surrey Police spokesman said the identity of the mob members was 'unknown''.

'Unknown'? So how can the papers claim with such certainty in their headlines that those involved were Gypsies?