See you next year...

Tabloid Watch is taking a short break for Winterv...sorry, Christmas.

Huge thanks to everyone who has read the blog, left a comment, emailed with a suggestion, shared ideas, offered support, followed me on Twitter, re-tweeted a thought or shared a post. It really is appreciated.

While I re-charge my batteries, I highly recommend Kevin Arscott's essay 'The Winterval Myth' which clearly sets out what Winterval was and, more importantly, what it wasn't. As if to prove the point, Primly Stable has posted this picture, from the Birmingham Post, showing Christmas was never banned and replaced by Winterval:


Take care everyone.

Here's Charles Brown.

Health and safety doesn't ban 'secret Santa'

Minority Thought has already covered this but here's a quick mention of the latest example of the Mail's health and safety myth-making:


The 'Secret Santa' has been leaving presents on a tree in a park in South Wales but, the Mail rages:

he didn’t bargain for today’s elf and safety legislation.

But the next two sentences prove that isn't really true:

Foul weather has ruined some of the presents left at Pembrey Country Park near Llanelli, South Wales – and the finders have simply thrown them away as litter.

So now he faces the threat of prosecution under litter and fly-tipping laws.

So not health and safety at all then.

But has this 'Secret Santa' been banned? Well, councillor Clive Scourfield is quoted saying:

‘We certainly don’t want to be the first authority to be labelled Scrooges for citing Santa for fly tipping. We would like to come to some kind of arrangement to better distribute his generosity – even if it is anonymously.’

And, from park manager Rory Dickinson:

‘Tis the season to be jolly and giving – but this does cause us a few problems. We cannot leave the presents out because of littering issues. Rangers have started a collection and will pass on the gifts to a suitable children’s charity.’

So they're looking for other ways to get the gifts to children. That's not really a 'ban' - and it's certainly nothing to do with health and safety.

Muslims and the Daily Star

During November, only seven different topics appeared as the front page lead on the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday. Here's the list, together with the number of times they appeared:

The X Factor - 12 days
Katie Price and/or Peter Andre - 6 days
Muslims - 3 days
Footballers - 3 days
Royal Wedding - 3 days
I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here - 2 days
Gordon Ramsay - 1 day

So for almost half the month, half-true (at best) stories about reality TV shows dominated the Star's front page. Another ten front pages were wasted on the sex lives and family feuds of celebs, chefs and footballers. Three front pages were devoted to the Royal Wedding.

The only other stories splashed on the front page were about Muslims, and they all fitted the Star's usual agenda:



Why is it that the only times the Star ran with what might be called non-celebrity news, it's negative stories about Muslims?

Take a look at that last headline. For one thing, there was no actual, physical 'knife attack' but some disgusting, bullying threats posted on Facebook. So the headline isn't really true.

But, as Minority Thought highlighted, look how it is 'Muslim' kids (or 'thugs', as they seem to prefer) against a 'Brit' kid.

The Mail's report on the same incident carried the headline:


Why the need to talk about 'Brits' and 'whites' as separate from Muslims?

Them and us, us and them.

And when the Sun wrote about the story, the 'white girl' was mentioned and the blame was placed solely on 'five Muslim schoolboys.'

This singling out occurred in two other stories in recent weeks.

When a pig was removed from an Early Learning Centre (ELC) play set, the Sun's headline said it was for 'religious reasons' and, in the story, claimed it was because the pig might:

upset Muslim and Jewish parents.

But as Exclarotive pointed out, the Mail's headline mentioned only one religion:


(The statement from ELC said: ‘We have taken the decision to reinstate the pigs and will no longer sell the set in international markets where it might be an issue.’)

The other story was about Rochdale's Christmas lights, which had a small mention on the front page of the Daily Star on 19 November under the ludicrous headline 'Christmas 'nicked' by Muslims.'

Had it been 'nicked'? No. But Rochdale Council had decided to put some 'Happy Eid' and 'Happy Diwali' lights up with the Christmas ones. So nothing had been 'nicked' and the Star could have run 'Christmas 'nicked' by Hindus' if they'd wanted. But they didn't.

As for the poppy burning on Remembrance Day, here's what Richard Littlejohn said in the Mail:

They looked like the same crowd demonstrating outside the Old Bailey last week when that Muslim madwoman was convicted of stabbing MP Stephen Timms.

Well, except that there were only three people outside the Old Bailey, and between 30 and 50 at the poppy burning. He went on:

Yet although 50 people took part in this atrocity, there were only three arrests - and judging by the pictures it was the counter-demonstrators from the so-called English Defence League who had their collars felt.

In fact, eight people were arrested including two of the Muslims protestors.

But while the poppy burning incident got acres of media coverage, some of the reactions to it have not.

Press Not Sorry published two posts showing the comments left on the English Defence League's Facebook page, where the home address of one of the Muslim protestors was, apparently, published. But the vile threats left on Facebook - to kill this protestor, to torture him, to burn him, his house and his family - didn't make the Star's front page. Or any other page.

And if the Star was interested in what Muslims do with poppies, they could have reported on the £20,963 raised by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association's poppy appeal drive in Croydon. The local paper said the group was 'singled out for praise' by the Royal British Legion.

Their efforts received a small mention in the Sun, but was ignored elsewhere.

A spate of incidents in Portsmouth have also been largely ignored. In the days following the poppy burning:

An imam in Portsmouth has said he is saddened his mosque has been targeted twice in two days after remembrance poppies were burnt in London.

A poppy was painted on the front of the Jami mosque, on Victoria Road North in Southsea, on Friday and on Saturday 100 people staged a demonstration outside.

Hampshire police said there had been no arrests but that they would continue to monitor the situation.

Muhammad Muhi Uddin said he condemned Thursday's poppy burning.

And then:

A Muslim academy in Portsmouth has been the target of two hate crimes in the past fortnight, police have said.

In the first incident, a brick with a racist message on it was thrown into the Portsmouth Muslim Academy, on Old Commercial Road, on 13 November.

A beer bottle was then thrown through a window at the front of the building last Friday.

But neither the Star, Mail or Express decided these events or the poppy-selling efforts of young Muslims was important enough to tell their readers. Why not?

The situation at the Star has led to Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate writing to the rag's editor, Dawn Neesom, to ask that they 'tone down the shrill'. He explains:

Our first target is the Daily Star. We've gone through the past seven years of the newspaper and found hundreds of negative articles about Muslims - and very few positive. Many of the articles over-exaggerate the importance of tiny Muslim extremist groups while ignoring more mainstream Muslim opinion and use the words of these extremists to smear an entire faith. On other occasions they print inaccurate or slanted articles that whip up fear and mistrust.

We can only hope that this campaign for more responsible journalism has some effect. Until then, we will have to hope that the Star sticks to the pointless 'celebrity' tittle-tattle.

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.

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.

Links

As it's silly season, the Sun has been running far too many stories about an abseiling donkey. The paper claimed to have saved the animal by buying it from its owner. But MediaGuardian reports that the owner says the Sun bought the wrong donkey.

Could it be a re-run of the Sun's ludicrous Newquay shark hoax from 2007?

Meanwhile, the influence of the tabloids has been shown by several instances where stories have been repeated by people in positions of power. So:

• a government minister repeats the 'Winterval' myth;
  
• a government white paper repeats a 'PC gone mad' half-truth about a 92-page police manual on riding a bike;
• a government spokeswoman refers to housing benefit policy being based on stories from the Sun and Mail.

Following on from the Mail's misleading article about a path on Snowdon, Minority Thought looks at changes to some stepping stones in Derbyshire that the Mail calls an 'elf'n'safety step too far'.

Also from Minority Thought, posts about hymen repair operations and Richard Littlejohn complaining about swine flu scaremongering, conveniently forgetting the coverage in the paper he works for.

Exclarotive has looked at Littlejohn's claim about something being banned because of human rights - and finds there's no such ban.

And Jonathan looks at some of Littlejohn's word games, and also shows how the Mail changed a misleading, reader-baiting, headline about immigration, benefits and jobs.

Angry Mob shows that the Mail thinks that tombstoning is 'madness' and 'dangerous' unless the person doing it is a plucky 75-year-old ex-Army Major.

Blogger Fagburn wonders if pop singer Joe McElderry had come out in 'exclusive' interviews for the Sun and, er, Mirror because a kiss-and-tell story was about to out him anyway.

Finally, the News of the World have paid out damages to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie over claims they were divorcing.

Hark! The Mail invents another 'PC gone mad' story

Another day, another pathetic Mail 'PC gone mad' tale.

Now the PC brigade wants to re-write our Christmas carols it screams. Do they? Do they really (whoever they are)?

Well, no.

The story is about Nic Robinson, who went to his 13-year-old daughter's school carol service and was singing 'Hark! The Hearld Angels Sing' when, shock:

he noticed that in verse two the line 'Pleased as man with man to dwell' was changed to 'Pleased with us in flesh to dwell' on the printed sheet.

Disgraceful. You can't even say 'man' any more.

The man (oh, you can say it) added:

'It's such a shame that things which are so well established are being changed for no reason at all. It makes me angry because I love the traditions around Christmas and the church.'

A weird over-reaction to a slight lyric change in a 270-year-old song. But is it right?

This is, after all, a PC gone mad story in the Mail and they haven't worked out too well recently.

They haven't done much research on this one either. A quick Google search reveals that the 'Hark!' lyrics on Hymnsite, Christmas Carol Music and many, many, many other sites contain the very same evil PC words.

Joyful Heart suggests that references to 'in flesh to dwell' appear in the Bible in:

John 1:14; Romans 1:3; 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7-8; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; 2:9-11; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7; Revelation 22:16

Yes, those PC fiends have gone and replaced the lyrics with phrases and references from the Bible. How dare they!

The man who complained is, says the Mail, a music teacher. He should, perhaps, have known that the original version was written by Charles Wesley in 1739 and then:

rewritten by George Whitefield (1714-1770) in 1753 (changing the first two lines), and by Reverend Martin Madan (1726-1790) in 1760 (changing lines seven and eight). Other changes occurred in 1782, 1810, and 1861.

In fact, Wesley's original first line - changed by Whitefield - was:

Hark how all the Welkin rings

So why isn't he complaining about that? In fact, the Mail adds:

Mr Robinson said he did not know who changed the words

Yes. Clearly.

But it certainly wasn't that 'PC brigade.'

Philip Davies and the Mail: the real PC obsessives

The latest 'PC brigade ban Christmas' nonsense comes in today's Mail. The article comes with the headline: Tinsel Taliban strikes as Court Service ban staff from decorations to avoid offence because, obviously, people who allegedly want to 'ban' coloured lengths of cheap shiny plastic are just like the Taliban.

The story claims this: Tory Baroness Warsi has received an email from an admin worker at Warwickshire Justice Centre in Nuneaton who claims tinsel has been banned under the company diversity and equality police because it offends people of other religions. Namely Muslims.

Banning Christmas things because of Mulims, diversity and equality - it's a Mail wet dream.

Except, once you read the quote from the Ministry of Justice spokesman, you strongly suspect it's not actually true. The Mail begins the quote with this:

Last night a source at the Ministry of Justice admitted that tinsel had been banned at the front-office counter at the Nuneaton office.

Which suggests all the above is true. But then:

'Over the counter, yes, where sensitive business like fine payments takes place,' he said. 'For that reason. Otherwise there is tinsel and stuff elsewhere.

'Nothing was removed for religious or diversity reasons.

'One piece of tinsel was removed from a counter where it was getting in the way. The rest of the tinsel remains there as festive as ever.'

So decorations have not been 'outlawed' as the Mail claimed. They've not been placed where people paying fines might not want them in their face, and one piece of tinsel was moved because it was in the way.

That's all the Mail is actually reporting on here.

A piece of tinsel has been moved in an office block because it was in the way.

Of course, it's clear that the Mail journalist Daniel Martin hasn't actually been to the building in question to see for himself.

But then the Mail has never much cared whether these stories are true or not. All they care about is that they fit the agenda and view of Britain the Mail wants to make people believe is true.

The Mail aren't alone - Tory MP Philip Davies is also obsessed with this fictional 'PC gone mad' idea. A rent-a-quote idiot who has never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting, Davies is the 'parliamentary spokesman' for the Campaign Against Political Correctness. The CAPC, ironically, is run by two idiots who have never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting.

The Guardian has revealed that rather than spending his time worrying about the serious political issues of the day, Davies has been bombarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission with letters asking questions such as:

Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person? PS I would be grateful if you could explain to me why it is so offensive to black up your face as I have never understood this.

It's just the type of comment that you would expect to read from a Mail reader.

Davies has said on several occasions that measures to tackle homophobic bullying are:

barmy, politically correct nonsense.

He said that Muslims should 'fuck off' in a made-up Sun story about an attack on a soldier's home in Windsor, which he then had to retract.

And now he claims he has 'never understood' why 'blacking up' is offensive.

Is it offensive to be a cretin or not, particularly if you are impersonating a Member of Parliament?

In the Guardian, Davies is quotes saying in response to these letters:

"Anybody who follows my career in parliament knows I'm concerned with the issue of political correctness. I'm merely pursuing a subject I raise more regularly than anyone else in parliament. It's one of my bugbears. Lots of people are castigated for being racist when that's not their intention."

Yes, but what about all those people castigated for being obsessed with political correctness based on half-truths and outright lies?

Outrage, Nazis, immigrants and upskirts: welcome to the Mail

There are several articles on the Daily Mail website today that deserve a quick comment.

First, there's the Mail's second attempt in a few days to out-do the Daily Sport in publishing 'upskirt' pictures of young women in short skirts/dresses.

Generally speaking, there is very little news value in 'singer gets into limo', but a lack of news value has never stopped the Mail website before...

The paparazzi pictures they have used of Rihanna - the singer in the limo in this particular article - are really, really tacky.

She's lifting her leg up! She's bending over in front of the camera! You can see her pants! And there's this one, which may be one of the weirdest pictures the paper has ever run:


It's an incredibly cheap and crude attempt to boost website hits. And to slag someone off for their 'dimpled thighs' (what is it with the Mail and 'dimpled thighs'?)

Second, the Mail has decided that it is going to be outraged by another comedian who has had the audacity to tell a joke:



Here's what the Mail claims Elton said:

The novelist called The Queen 'a sad little old lady' and Prince Philip a 'mad old bigot who wishes it was still the war'. Elton claimed Prince Charles was 'a disillusioned ex-hippy,' Prince Andrew is 'a bit of a yob,' and suggested Prince Edward was gay.

It's not exactly funny, but how can the Mail possibly justify calling those remarks 'sick' and 'foul mouthed'?

And like the Frankie Boyle joke about Rebecca Adlington, if it's all so awful, why the need to repeat it? In detail.

As one of the comments says:

Quick everyone! Get outraged - the Daily Mail has spoken! - Delboy, georgeosborneland, 17/11/2009 14:09

Third, the murder of Geeta Aulakh which is currently top story on the Mail website. When it first appeared, the headline was:

Asian woman, 28, found dying in street with hand chopped off

Thankfully it has been changed to remove the pointless reference to the woman's race - perhaps because she was born in Britain.

Next is How Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine tried to take Christ out of Christmas, a shameless attempt by the Mail and the people leaving comments to suggest those mythical people who want to 'ban Christmas' are all Nazis. As 5CC noted, the stories have already begun this year, with the Times falsely claiming Dundee was banning Christmas despite plenty of very easily found evidence to the contrary.

The comments include lots of myth-based, fact-free ramblings as:

Oddly the 'Nazification' of Christmas reminds me of so many of the stories we hear about PC local authorities trying to rename Christmas 'Winterval' - Iain, Bristol, UK, 17/11/2009 16:20 Yes, and certain individuals are trying to take Christ out of Christmas over here, in this day and age too! - Pol, Stoke on Trent, 17/11/2009 16:41 Bit like some of OUR councils...eh - Sid Jacques, Durham, 17/11/2009 17:12

Yes, the Nazi's are exactly like our councils Sid. Probably using wheelie bins instead of freight trains.

As Richard Bartholomew pointed out, the article is very similar in content to this one published in Spiegel four days ago. From the original:

One symbol posed a particular problem for the Nazis, namely the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. "Either it was a six-pointed star, which was a symbol of the Jews, or it was a five-pointed star, which represented the Soviets," Breuer says. Either way, the star had to go.

From the Mail:

The symbol that posed a particular problem for the Nazis was the star, which traditionally decorates Christmas trees. 'Either it was a six-pointed star, which was a symbol of the Jews, or it was a five-pointed star, which represented the Soviets,' Breuer said. It had to go.

From the original:

In the 1930s, their efforts were aimed mainly at changing the ideology of Christmas, Breuer explains. But when World War II started, the focus became more practical.

From the Mail:

In the 1930s, the Nazis tried to change the ideology of Christmas. But when World War II started, the focus became more practical.

And so on. The whole Mail article is a poor bit of plagiarism which has been picked up just as a warm up for the many 'PC bans Christmas' stories to come.

Finally the immigration story. The article Afghan asylum seeker wins right to stay in Britain after converting to Christianity begins:

An Afghani who arrived in Britain on a hijacked jet has been granted asylum after converting to Christianity.

It's not until the fifth sentence - conveniently beneath the first picture, so well down the page - that the Mail explains the man in question wasn't one of the hijackers, which the first sentence heavily implies.

There are at least three comments that have been left by readers which refer to the still untrue 'immigrant stays because he had a cat' story, suggesting this Afghan should have got a pet rather than go to the trouble of converting to Christianity. It is deeply worrying that a lie that has been spread around by the media so casually is now accepted as true.

One of the other comments - and like the rest, this has been accepted and published by a moderator - says:


It's hard to understand why 'J' thought it necessary to reveal his genius in such elegant prose, why the mods thought it imperative to pass it on, and why at least thirty-eight people have voted it positive. What is he even 'yeah sure'-ing about?

But most of the comments are of the kind where you can sense their head shaking as their intolerant fingers bash out their message. The Human Rights Act, stupid judges, the Liebour government, crooked asylum lawyers and all liberals seem to be being 'blamed' for what they believe will see crowds of Christian converts trying to get to Britain.

But here's the thing. According to the Mail, this man is forty-nine, has two children and although he:

was a Muslim, [he was] baptized as a Christian five years after arriving in the UK and now regularly attends church and bible classes in Hounslow, west London.

So a middle-aged, Church-going, father of two. Isn't that exactly the type of person the Mail loves?

And isn't that the sort of immigrant the Mail's readers love? After all, they demand that all immigrants should integrate into British life. It's a Christian country, they repeatedly say. If they don't like, they should leave. If they can't be like us, they're not welcome.

So this immigrant has converted to the religion of the host country and probably been to church far more regularly over the last four and a half years than most of them. And yet, he's a fraud who's not welcome either:

Any wangle will do ... pass me the sickbag.
- Philip, Bankrupted Britain, 17/11/2009 13:55

he is a muslim not a christian
- joseph diazrald, London, 17/11/2009 13:37

Now I have just about heard it all.Expect a rush of born again Christians on the next ferry from Calais
- Dave, Essex, 17/11/2009 13:21

Deport this bogus man.
- BD, Kent, 17/11/2009 13:07

Disgusting - extremely disgusting......
Don't encourage them - or else they will be a flood, and the boat will sink.
- Expatriate, Hamburg, Germany, 17/11/2009 11:57

Either way, he couldn't win. It's almost as if the Mail and its readers just don't want any immigrants here at all...