The Express, the EU and plastic bags - part 3

On 20 May 2011, the Express claimed:

The EU hadn't actually said 'ban shopping bags' or even 'ban' plastic bags.

In fact, the EU had simply launched a public consultation on what action, if any, should be taken on plastic bags.

Undeterred, the Express said this on 19 January 2012:

The EU hadn't actually said it wanted 'all plastic bags' to be made 'illegal'.

In fact, it had been reported that the results of the public consultation were that 70% of the 15,500 responses favoured a ban. But there was no evidence in the story that the EU was to adopt this stance.

Undeterred, today's Express said:

'Now EU bans plastic bags'. 'Now'! So 'now' it is actually happening?

Well, the subhead seems to contradict the main headline as it says: 'Shoppers will be forced to pay new Brussels tax'.

So there will be a 'new tax' for something that's going to be banned?

The actual article, by Martyn Brown, does not clear up this confusion:

Brussels commissars want to outlaw shops from stocking them or impose a wallet-busting tax on shoppers to dramatically reduce their use.

The use of 'commissars' is not, of course, accidental.

So there might be a 'ban' or shoppers may have to pay for them (something some shops do already). Either way, the Express knows the charge will be 'wallet-busting'. It just doesn't say what the charge will be.

The paper says:

One of the key proposals will be a recommendation for mandatory charging for plastic shopping bags.

'Mandatory charges'? Won't one of the 'key proposals' be a 'ban'?

The paper says that the Commission's report will be published next month. Two sentences later, it says:

The proposals were met with fury last night by retailers and politicians and added to the growing support for our crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Fury always erupts 'last night' for the Express. But how can 'fury' erupt at a set of proposals that haven't been published when it's not clear - especially from the Express' article - what those the proposals are.

Indeed, a week before the Express' article, the BBC website published an article weighing up different options for plastic bags. It said:

The European Commission is to publish proposals in the spring designed to reduce the number of plastic bags used in Europe each year.

Moreover, Speigel reported on 21 March that an internal Commission report has ruled out a complete ban:

At least one of those options -- the complete ban -- has already been taken off the table. According to the Commission study, a ban would have positive environmental impacts, but it would also "raise difficult legal questions." The report calls a complete ban: "a blunt instrument that gives little flexibility to producers, retailers, or consumers." The report also says that a ban would conflict with international trade law and EU internal market rules.

So we wait to see what the Commission actually says when its report is published. Maybe it will propose banning plastic bags, although the Spiegal report suggests that is unlikely. But at this stage it simply isn't clear.

Importantly, nothing in the Express' article justifies the claim in that front page headline.

(Hat-tip to Tim Fenton, for noting the constant eruptions of fury at the Express)

'Now' Red Arrows are (not) banned by health and safety

On 13 July, Angry Mob highlighted the latest thing 'banned' by health and safety: the Red Arrows.

The Mail reported, under a headline which began with the word 'now...':

The Red Arrows have been banned from putting on a flying display over a seaside town – over health and safety fears.

The world famous RAF team were scheduled to top the bill at the annual regatta in Dartmouth, Devon.

But organisers decided to cancel the display – which has taken place every year since 1980 – amid fears that vibrations from the low-flying jets might damage buildings.

The story went on to reveal the thoughts of angry locals who said it was:

'just health and safety nonsense'.

In fact, it was just nonsense. Why?

Because one day after the Mail's story, the Red Arrows issued a press release with the headline 'Spurious show story':

There have been reports in the national news today that the Red Arrows will not be displaying at Dartmouth.

This is not true and the Team is still planning to display at the Town’s Royal Regatta event.

Squadron Leader Ben Murphy, Officer Commanding and Team Leader of the Red Arrows said:

“We are still planning to display at Dartmouth on August 27. We have not been contacted by the event organisers with any concerns about damage to buildings. In fact the Mayor of Dartmouth contacted the Team this morning to say that the town is still very much looking forward to the display and that reports in the national press about the town cancelling are simply not true.”

(Hat-tip IC Oliver)

No room for tolerance

Writing for the Independent, freelance journalist Samuel Muston says:

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

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

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

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



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

But here's a few other observations.

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

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

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

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

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

And, as Jonathan says:

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

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

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

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

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

So the Mail editorial says:

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

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

But the Express is rather more blunt:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Scaremongering about immigrants and the NHS

On Saturday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in schools:

On Sunday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in the job market:


On Monday, immigrants were (again) being blamed for problems in the job market:


And on Tuesday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in the NHS:


Predictably, the BNP wasted no time in regurgitating each story for their own website.

The racist party's article on the Mail's school story was followed by this ugly comment:


How proud the Mail must be to help foster such hatred.

But back to the Express' front page about Poles getting abortions on the NHS. This story was actually in Monday's Sun, so it's no surprise to see it appear in the Express the following day.

The Sun said:

Ten thousand Polish women came to Britain for NHS abortions last year.

The phrasing is deliberate. 'Came' to Britain for an abortion. As if that was the sole purpose of their visit. And there's little evidence to suggest that is true.

Nonetheless, the Express suggested the same:

A Polish source said yesterday that thousands of Polish women already flee the strict Roman Catholic country’s anti-abortion laws every year to undergo the procedure on the NHS.

There's not a hint of any sympathy in any of this coverage for Polish women based on the fact that:

Poland practises one of the most restrictive abortion regimes in Europe, banning and criminalising it except on medical grounds, risk to life, and where pregnancy results from sexual violence.

The Department of Health said in a statement:

The NHS is provided primarily for the benefit of people lawfully resident in the UK.

There is no provision in the UK Immigration Rules for people to come to this country for the purpose of obtaining NHS treatment and with certain exceptions non-residents are expected to pay for any medical treatment they receive while they are here.

We do, however, choose to exempt from charge the residents of some countries for some treatment needs when they visit the UK, under reciprocal healthcare agreements, meaning that UK citizens receive similar benefits when they visit those countries.

But in any case, are 'thousands' of Polish women coming to the UK to have abortions?

Well, no.

The latest Department of Health figures for abortions carried out in England and Wales cover 2008.

They show that the number of women who are residents of Poland and who had an abortion in England and Wales was just 30.

Compare that with the 4,600 women from Ireland.

And yet, would the Express put 'Now Irish get free abortions on NHS' on it's front page?

Indeed, of all the abortions for women classifed as non-resident in England and Wales, 90.6% came from Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

The 30 Poles equate to 0.4%. There are more from Italy (150) and France (60), while Spain accounted for 29.

So why pick on the Poles?

Clearly given the increase in the Polish population of Britain since EU enlargement there are likely to be more Polish women who are living and working here but they are as entitled to NHS treatment as anyone else.

But the tabloids are not framing the story in that way - it's all about scaremongering about health tourism and immigrants getting things the papers think they shouldn't.

(More by Unity at Liberal Conspiracy)

Recommended reading

5CC's excellent Did the Government really secretly plot to change the face of Britain? is a thorough dissection of all the nonsense that has appeared in the tabloids repeatedly over the last few months on the non-existent Government immigration plot.

The latest example of that was Melanie Phillips in the Mail yesterday, which Anton commented on at Enemies of Reason.

Anton has also exposed the Express' ludicrous Now migrants get a 'VIP club' front page - another immigration scare, another load of rubbish.

Over at Angry Mob, Uponnothing has looked at the Mail's latest target: disabled car parking spaces. He's also given his take on the MPs report on the press, and done an entertaining Daily Mail Reporter-spoof attack on Paul Dacre.

Back to 5CC and he's examined why a recent grant to the Christian Police Association has attracted none of the tabloid coverage that the Black, Trans or Muslim Police Associations regularly endure.

On a lighter note, Chris Spann wonders why the Mail seems so obsessed by the fact that Victoria Beckham has bunions. They've mentioned them 18 times in the last three months.

More front page lies from the Express

On Thursday 11 February, the Express ran the headline: 'Now we have to bail out the euro'.

It could hardly be more unequivocal, or more appealing to an anti-European paper such as the Express.

And here's how the article, by Macer Hall, begins:

British taxpayers could be forced to pay up to £3.5billion a year towards bailing out the crisis-hit Greek economy, it emerged last night.

'Could be' bailing out Greece? But that makes it sound as if the headline - 'Now we have to bail out the euro' - is misleading. On two counts.

Surely not? Hall goes on:

And it is understood that German President Angela Merkel is to press for all EU states, including Britain, to be ready to provide billions of pounds in emergency debt aid.

Which is strange given that Merkel:

mounted stiff resistance tonight to any swift bailout of Greece.

Moreover, the Guardian reported:

Greece tonight vehemently denied that it had gone to Brussels with begging bowl in hand to resolve its debt crisis, insisting there was no question of a 'bail-out'.

In other words 'we' are not bailing out the 'euro'.

Two days after that, the Express served up Zero bin waste or get fine, with free chocolate and fish and chips.

This one was written by Martyn Brown, who suggested that as Britain has had some snow, there can't possibly be global warming, so you know it's going to have some intellectual rigour behind it.

He writes:

An army of snooping bin police will inspect the rubbish of millions of families under a sinister Government plan to create 'zero waste' in Britain.

Squads of spies will carry out dawn raids to check that householders are not throwing out any rubbish and recycling it all instead...

The cloak-and-dagger crackdown from the so-called 'Talibin' has been launched in six pilot areas, the Daily Express can reveal, and could eventually apply to virtually all UK households.

When Brown says the 'Daily Express can reveal' what he actually means is that this was announced in a Defra press release in October 2009 (although the scheme began back in 2008) Hardly 'cloak-and-dagger'.

You would think he'd be able to get it right after four months. After all, if the Express is going to put a story that old on the front page, you'd think they'd get the facts straight.

They haven't. At all.

The impression Brown gives is that your wheelie bins are going to be inspected in dawn raids by people just like the Taliban. And:

People failing to comply with the strict rules face hefty fines.

Unfortunately for the Express, it falls apart at the end of the article. A Defra spokesman is quoted explaining what's really happening:

'This project does not involve fines for householders who fail to recycle and it does not involve going through individual bins.'

So how did Brown, who is meant to be a journalist, get that quote and think that meant there were going to be people issuing fines after rummaging through your bins?

And how did the Express dream up the front page headline 'Zero bin waste or get fine'?

And why does the PCC let the Express get away with such a blatant lie splashed across its front page?

All Muslims are the same, to the Express

So today's Express front page ramps up the Islamophobia with a headline about Sharia Law.

Notice the use of the word 'Muslims' however.

The 'Muslims' in question are in fact a group called Islam4UK, who are led by favourite tabloid hate-figure Anjem Choudry.

But the phrasing of 'Now Muslims demand' makes it sound as if all Muslims are saying the same thing. And that's clearly no accident - it's exactly the impression the Express wants to give.

The story, by Martyn Brown, claims:

The fanatical group Islam4UK has ­announced plans to hold a potentially incendiary rally in London later this month...

Plans for the demonstration have been delivered to the Metropolitan Police and could see up to 5,000 extremists marching to demand the controversial system.

Going by figures from last week's Pew report, which said there were 1.6million Muslims in Britain, the 5,000 equates to 0.3% of the Muslim population.

And that is even assuming the shameless self-publicist Choudry can get 5,000 people along, which seems highly unlikely. In using the words 'could see up to 5,000' the Express admits as much.

So the Express is claiming this is what 'Muslims demand' eventhough it is what less than 0.3% of British Muslims are calling for?

As if to prove that point, buried deep in the Express story is the following:

A spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said: “99.999 per cent of Muslims despise these people. This only serves to fuel racial ­tensions.”

And the Muslim Council of Britain have issued a statement saying:

The overwhelming majority of British Muslims want nothing to do with such extremists...The Muslim Council of Britain deplores the proposed march by Islam4UK, a front organisation of extremist fringe group al-Muhajiroun, as a deliberate action to provoke hatred and division in the society.

They add:

The MCB is also appalled at the amount of coverage given to the fringe group’s call by the Daily Express which has wrongly characterised their demands as those of Muslims generally.

Quite. Why is the Express - and indeed other papers - obsessed with covering every obnoxious utterance of Choudry? Because they know they can push their anti-Muslim agenda. It's easy, and no doubt Choudry relishes it.

But more importantly, it's nothing short of disgraceful that the Express uses the headline to give the impression this is all Muslims, when it is in fact such a miniscule minority.

What is noticeable is that since the front page appeared last night, Islam4UK's website had been completely inaccessible with a 'database error'. They can't even get that right.

Now migration makes the front page again

Here's today's Express. Two immediate reasons to believe the story isn't true. One, it's an immigration story on the front of the Express. Two, it begins with the word 'Now...'

The story does refer to migrants, illegal immigrants and these same people are said to be 'flooding' into 'Greece to claim asylum in Britain', if that even makes sense. So there's some confusion over who these people are - if they even exist at all...

The claim is that a trafficking gang recently arrested in Paris has revealed how it took £10,000 in exchange for a fake passport, visa and a flight to Ireland, where the 'migrants' then moved into Northern Ireland and then got a ferry to Scotland or Liverpool.

(The Mail version says they 'fly into Britain', as if Ireland isn't a seperate country...)

Of course 'smuggling' sounds like something underhand and hidden, which would be hard to do if they were in 'club class'. But the phrase 'club class' isn't actually meant to mean that - as this story from 5 years ago shows - although the headline makes it sound like it is.

But there are further problems with the story. One is that it assumes that passport control in Ireland is so appalling all these fake passports are waved through without any question.

It also fails to give any accurate indication of how many people have actually made this journey. The implication in the way the story is written ('migrants from across Asia and the Middle East') is that it is loads. But the French say the gang smuggled maybe 150 people in total over the course of 9 months. The Express admits - deep into the story - while 'most went to Britain, while others chose to start new lives in Scandinavia and Canada,' a fact that has been deleted from later versions of the story on the Mail site.

The gang are said to have made £500,000, but if they were charging £10,000 for this 'club class' service, that would only mean 50 people smuggled. If they claim it's three times more than that, then that would suggest very few paid for the 'club class' passage.

The Express says the migrants paid £3,000 to go from Greece to Paris. If 150 people paid £3,000 to get to France, that is £450,000...so how many people did make the journey via Ireland?

In any case: 'The suspects have made full confessions in exchange for a reduction in prison sentences,' which suggests we shouldn't take all their claims as being totally credible.

Ditto the Express.

Recommended reads

Excellent post at 5CC about a typically misleading 'look what is being done for the Muslims' story regarding headscarves and the fire service, and a nice look at the use of the word 'Now...' to start headlines (something the Express seems particularly fond of).

And Jonathan's picking apart of the latest Express immigration scare.