BBC accuses Mail of inaccuracy and misrepresenting the facts

On Wednesday, the Mail published its latest attack on the BBC:

Sam Greenhill's article begins:

The BBC spent £4million laying off staff – only for nearly half of them to continue working as normal.

The money was paid to around 70 workers as compensation because their posts were being relocated north to Salford. But after accepting the ‘redundancy’ money – £57,000 each, on average – about 17 of them simply carried on in the same jobs, it is understood.

He goes on to quote the TaxPayers' Alliance who are always on hand to express some 'outrage':

‘The BBC could have saved millions by not making these unnecessary payouts.'

But the BBC has issued a statement in response to the Mail's story:

Today's Daily Mail claims that the BBC has spent £4m laying off staff in BBC Studios and Post Production (S&PP) – only for half of them to continue working as normal.

This article is inaccurate and misrepresents the facts, which are these.

Seventy roles were closed in BBC Studios and Post Production as a direct result of the move of the BBC Sport and BBC Children’s departments to Salford.

All staff whose posts closed were eligible for compromise agreements, which were legally agreed and negotiated with the unions. They are not “unnecessary payouts” or “cosy deals”.

No staff received any money until their posts had closed and they had left the BBC.

Seventeen staff had their leave date – and therefore their payment - delayed up until BBC Sport and BBC Children's production was fully up and running in Salford. It is clear that 17 out of 70 roles is not half, as The Mail suggested.

In addition, there was no re-hiring by the BBC. The contracts for Sport and Children’s were taken on by private companies based in Manchester. The BBC is not aware of any staff from S&PP having been employed by these companies in Salford, but if they were, it would be good news for the individual that they have been able to find a new job outside the BBC.

Finally, it is worth restating that BBC Studios and Post Production is a commercial company and this process was funded entirely from commercial revenue and not the Licence Fee.

(Hat-tip to Jem Stone)

The '£32' loaf of bread

On 19 and 20 July, several newspapers thought they had a scoop on how much the NHS was spending on gluten-free food. In particular, they claimed that loaves of gluten-free bread which are available at the supermarket for £2.25 are being bought by the NHS for over £32.

'Prescriptions scandal: £32.37 a loaf' said a page 9 story in the Sun, which was accompanied by an editorial comment.

The Mirror went with 'Gluten free loaves costing NHS £32.27 a time', the Mail carried the headline 'Use your loaf! NHS officials pay £32 for gluten-free bread that costs £2.25 in the shops', while the Telegraph and WalesOnline ran the same claims under similar headlines.

The source for all this seems to have been a statement by Welsh Assembly member Darren Millar and it seems little fact-checking was done by journalists who repeated his claims.

The TaxPayers' Alliance were, inevitably, asked for their reaction and their spokesman Emma Boon said:

"It smacks of incompetence that the Welsh NHS is paying so much more than they are available for in the shops."

On 20 July, the Express gave James Delingpole space for an 886-word opinion piece in which he suggested this bread must be:

made of fairy-dust-sprinkled hypoallergenic wheat harvested by pixies at dawn, hand-ground by hedge-fund managers and then baked to perfection by Parisian masterchefs in ovens made of pure gold!

That the NHS was spending so much was, he said:

symptomatic of a system which is rotten to the core.

But the very next day, the Express published a correction, buried on page 26:

In James Delingpole's piece ('Who would spend so much on a loaf?' July 20) he states that the NHS spent £984,185 on 47,684 loaves of gluten free bread. This should have read 47,684 'prescriptions' for gluten free bread. The figure of £20 per loaf is therefore inaccurate. The price of an individual loaf of gluten-free bread is £2.82.

The Atomic Spin blog, which wrote about these misleading stories at the time, explains:

Well, it looks like the story comes from this Welsh government data about prescriptions. Sure enough, if you look it says that the 27 prescriptions of a particular type of bread, Lifestyle Gluten-Free High-Fibre Brown, cost £32.27 each. But doctors aren’t prescribing one loaf of bread at a time.

The important column is the one marked “quantity”, which tells you how many grams of bread were prescribed. For Lifestyle Gluten-Free High-Fibre Brown, doctors prescribed a total of 123,600 grams. Divided between the 27 people, that’s 4,577 grams each, or about 11 loaves of bread per person. So that £32.27 figure is the cost of buying 11 loaves of bread, not 1, and as the Welsh government points out, it works out at around £2.82 per loaf. This is still slightly more than the cheapest online cost of the bread, so I assume there is still room to bring prescription costs down, but NHS Wales is certainly not spending more than £30 on a loaf of bread.

And this was exactly the point made by the Welsh Health Minister, in responding to the media coverage:

Reports in the press this morning suggesting that a loaf of gluten free bread costs the NHS £32 are incorrect.

The £32 figure appears to have been arrived at following a misinterpretation of NHS prescribing statistics - which show the total number of prescriptions dispensed, rather than the total number of loaves prescribed. This data is available on the Welsh Government website.

Welsh Health Minister Lesley Griffiths said:

"This claim is inaccurate. The actual cost for the single loaf of gluten-free bread in question is around £2.82, not the £ 32 claimed. The £32 cost quoted is for an average prescription on which several loaves are ordered at a time...

Loaf of bread

Over the last 12 months there were 27 prescriptions issued for the gluten free bread quoted as costing £32 per loaf. On the 27 prescriptions, the total amount of the bread prescribed was 123,600 grams. Each loaf is 400 grams. Therefore, 309 loaves were prescribed for £ 871.36 ie £2.82 per 400 gram loaf.

At time of writing, the Sun's original article appears to have been removed, without explanation, from its website, and while the Express has published its apology in the paper, this has not been put on its website, where Delingpole's original is still visible. All the other articles remain.

(Big hat-tips to Atomic Spin and Primly Stable)

UPDATE: The TaxPayers' Alliance's Emma Boon was asked by Atomic Spin if she wished to withdraw her claims, given the original figures were so far out. Here's her reply.

Express continues to lie about the EU

Monday's Daily Express front page claimed:


Macer Hall's article began:

Fury erupted last night after a European Union plot to “carve up Britain” by ­setting up a cross-Channel region was exposed.

The Express implied that this 'plot' was something new (albeit, as Roy Greenslade pointed out, slightly less new than when a similar story appeared in the Mail two days before). Yet mid-way through the article, after the inevitable quotes from UKIP and the TaxPayers' Alliance, Hall admitted:

Arc Manche was formally launched six years ago to forge closer links between local councils in southern English counties with their counterparts in northern France.

In fact, the Arc Manche network has been around since 1995.

So the Express eventually stated it's about 'forging closer links between councils' rather than a 'plot' to 'merge UK with France'. But how many Express readers will read - and believe - that after the screaming headline?

The EU's Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, has written to the Express to clarify the position:

We are as surprised as your readers to hear that your newspaper believes the EU wishes to merge Britain and France. The suggestion that the “EU wants to merge UK with France”, 2nd May, is absurd, and of course, untrue.

There is no proposal to create a new cross-channel region. What exist (and have done for 10 years) are a number of cross-border programmes aimed at things like boosting jobs and looking after the environment.

A similar note was also sent to the Daily Star, who ran a similar article under the ludicrous headline 'Clowns plan to turn us French'.

Today, the Express was at it again, claiming on the front page:


'Now we must fly the EU flag on our public buildings'. Really?

It's Macer Hall again:

Scores of public buildings around the country are being ordered to fly the blue-and-gold European Union flag to mark the occasion next Monday.

Officials will be expected to ensure the flag remains hoisted for a week, with a swingeing fine from Brussels threatened for those that disobey.

The Daily Star's version claimed:

Eurocrats were last night facing a revolt over a bid to force Britain to celebrate “Europe Day” next week.

Scores of public buildings are being ordered to fly the European Union flag to mark the occasion.

Officials will be expected to ensure it remains hoisted for a week from Monday. And those that disobey could be fined.

Or not, according to a letter sent to the Express from Jonathan Scheele, Head of European Commission Representation in the UK and Michael Shackleton, Head of European Parliament Information Office in the UK:

Regarding your front page of today, only 2 buildings in the UK are expected to fly the European flag for Europe Day and the Commission would not fine countries that did not do so. The rules that make this provision were passed in 2006 by all EU countries, including the UK. No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May though some may choose to do so. Some schools want to do something to mark the day and ask us for ideas. We send these purely on demand and they in no way constitute “instructions”.

According to them the Editor of the Express, Hugh Whittow, has refused to publish their letter, thus failing to give a right of reply to those his paper has accused. And, of course, there's no way of complaining to the PCC since Richard Desmond withdrew from the self-regulatory system.

So the Express' campaign against the EU continues.

In March, the paper ran a front page headline claiming 'Cars face ban from all cities...another plan forced on us by crazy EU'. As Minority Thought blogged at the time, it wasn't true. Now these two stories within a few days.

What will the paper falsely claim the EU has banned/forced on us next?

Express front page lies about chip shop salt 'ban'

The ridiculous front page splash on today's Express claims:


'Banned', eh? The story by Chris Riches says:

Salt shakers are being removed from fish and chip shops in a nanny state ruling on what we can eat.

The petty diktat is supposed to be part of a healthy living drive to lower salt consumption which has been linked to high blood pressure.

The story includes a large number of 'angry' quotes from local residents, rent-a-quote politicians and, inevitably, the TaxPayers' Alliance.

And the Express' editorial isn't happy either:

So for Stockport Council to force food outlets to withdraw salt from view is daft. Any council official turning up at a fish and chip shop to check the ban is being enforced rigorously may run the risk of getting battered.

So is salt going to be 'banned' and 'removed' from all chip shops by 'force', because of a 'diktat'? Not quite:

Stockport Council...wants fish and chip shops, cafes and Indian restaurants to hide salt shakers behind the counters.

As part of its campaign, customers who notice no salt on the counter or table will have to ask for it.

So it's only one council and they're not actually banning anything. Indeed:

The move is part of the wider Greater Manchester ASK campaign to cut excessive salt consumption, which is linked to high blood pressure, stomach cancer and asthma.

Businesses that sign up to the scheme will display an ASK symbol in their windows and have information on their cafe tables.

Or, as the Mail put it in their version of the same news, which was top story on their website on Wednesday:

The scheme, called ASK, is voluntary...

While the Mail's story does state the salt is only being put behind the counter, their headline still refers to Stockport as:


And yes, that really is 'out of site' (thanks geeoharee).

The Express article also claims that salt is:

one of the simple pleasures of life.

Yet on 22 March, the same paper took a slightly different view:

There is a killer on your dinner table every night, an assassin in your lunchtime sandwiches and you probably have no idea of the danger...

Every year 17,500 people die in the UK from cardiovascular disease and strokes caused by eating too much salt.

Non-story about local pool forces journalism black out

A classic 'look what those dastardly Muslims are up to now' front page from the Express today:


It's also one of those classic examples of churnalism. It's a story that starts life in the regional press and then gets picked up by the nationals because it covers one of their favourite issues - one they know will push the buttons of their readers.

On Saturday, the local Express and Star explained it had been contacted by a few users of Darlaston swimming pool in Walsall who were critical of a new film that had been placed on windows for privacy reasons.

That wouldn't be newsworthy, but for the fact that some - although, according to the Council, not all - of the requests for the change had come from the Muslim community.

And suddenly, the tabloids are full of headlines about Muslims 'forcing' their views on 'us'.

The churnalism was obvious - the same people, saying the same things, appeared in every article. Some of them were locals, but inevitably the TaxPayers' Alliance popped up as well.

Matthew Elliott, the TPA's chief executive went so far as to say:

It is bizarre to spoil a swimming pool like this just because of the demands of a very small group...it makes a big difference to the experience of using the pool.

An attempt to find out if Elliott had been to the pool to see if it was actually 'spoiled' and what the 'big difference' was went unanswered, unsurprisingly. But they got their name in the paper again so they're happy.

By yesterday, the BBC, Mail and Sun had run the story and today the Mirror, Star and the Express followed.

None of them had gone to the centre, or done any actual journalism (copying and pasting quotes and phoning the TPA is not journalism, although you wouldn't know it from many papers today).

Every headline suggested that this happened solely because of Muslims. The Star and Mirror didn't bother to include the quote which pointed out:

"We received a request from the Muslim Community to protect the modesty of swimmers. There were also requests made by some non-Muslim users as well."

Most of the others left this until the end of their article. It's not convenient to their narrative to reveal that non-Muslims would be involved, so they try their best to ignore it, hoping their readers do the same.

The Express' online article carried a headline which talked of 'appeasing Muslims' - a word that seems to have been deliberately chosen.

The Mail and Sun both hugely over-exaggerated the extent of the changes. Swimmers plunged into dark after council covers swimming pool windows 'to protect Muslim women's modesty' claimed the Mail. Pool blacked out for Muslim swim ranted the Sun.

'Blacked out'? Really?

The Sun said:

the local council has covered all 250 windows at the centre in Darlaston...the move has plunged the pool into permanent darkness

The Mail:

council staff have covered 250 windows with dark-tinted film

The Mirror agreed that:

All 250 windows at the pool have been covered

This claim about the gloominess was boosted by one of the (apparently) furious leisure centre users who claimed the pool looked no different now as it did to her when she had cataracts.

But it wasn't true. The Mail (and the print edition of the Express) included pictures which clearly showed it wasn't 'all' the windows that were now covered:


So, this afternoon, Walsall Council issued a statement, attacking the:

inaccurate and misleading media coverage of work carried out at Darlaston Leisure Centre.

Have all 250 windows been blacked out? Not quite:

The council has come under fire for applying a translucent film to 58 window panels

Ah. But that still means it's pitch black inside, no?

No:

Anyone who will now use the pool will see that it's not in darkness at all. It’s like cling film, which allows in natural light; so this suggestion that its windows are blacked out are misleading and inaccurate.

What about the Express' claim that the Muslims 'forced' this to happen?

The funding for this work comes from Area Based Grant from the Government. We asked local people how public services could be more responsive to the needs of different cultural groups...

Adjustments are made to facilities from time to time in response to suggestions from people in the community.

We agreed it was a good idea and all users will benefit from these improvements.

So the Council responds to suggestions from local people and this is a reason to splash it on the front page and pour scorn on it.

As Councillor Anthony Harris says:

"The same measures were taken at Bloxwich Leisure Centre around 10 years ago, in response to requests from the community there. It's a shame that such minor adjustments, aimed at encouraging more people to enjoy a healthy pastime, have provoked such a negative response."

In essence, a leisure centre has added a few privacy measures to a swimming pool after suggestions from Muslims and non-Muslims.

The tabloids turn this into: Muslims force Council to black out all windows in a swimming pool so they can swim while ruining it for everyone else.

The backlash against Muslims on the newspaper comment pages has been as vicious, intolerant and ignorant as you might expect.

Star lies about results of refugee poll

A remarkable article in yesterday's Mail managed to discuss asylum seekers and refugees without being snide or negative.

A poll by Refugee Action - to mark Refugee Week - showed:

Asylum seekers find most British people polite, welcoming and obsessed with football, according to a survey out today.

And the best things about living in the UK are not only the friendly locals and our national sport, but also British TV, the poll found.

X-Factor, EastEnders and news bulletins were the top three TV programmes favoured by refugees and asylum seekers.

The Mail even included the definitions of asylum seeker and refugee - terms that, along with illegal immigrant, it usually uses so interchangeably.

The article says:

More than half said they either strongly agreed or tended to agree that the average British person welcomed refugees to the UK.

Fortunately, the Mail hasn't allowed any comments on the article to disprove that...

The same poll was given a rather more typical tabloid treatment by the Daily Star. The headline, for once, wasn't far off when it said 'Refugees love British TV and the Royal Family'.

But Emma Wall's article begins with an outright deception:

Asylum seekers are flocking to Britain because they love X Factor, the Queen and state handouts.

This is totally wrong for two reasons.

One is that the poll never asked why asylum seekers come to the UK but what they most liked about Britain now they are here. 'Flocking to Britain because...' simply can not be said, based on these results.

Secondly, there's no mention of state handouts anywhere in the poll.

Indeed, two sentences later, Wall admits it says no such thing:

A poll for a refugee charity found they also like living here because of our national passion for football.

But critics reckon the real reason is actually the fact they are cleaning up thanks to our generous benefits system.

It is sad that this Star hack thinks that a weekly income 30% below the poverty line is 'generous', but that's probably because she's ignorant about the facts.

And 'critics', eh? And one guess as to who those 'critics' are:

But the survey has been blasted for hiding the real reason they love Britain.

Matthew Elliott, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It’s undeniable some are here for the money and not our culture.”

It's not clear who this 'some' are.

But BBC journalist Paul Kenyon and recent Refugee Council research both said, the vast majority of asylum seekers had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK.

It's also not clear why the Star felt it necessary to get a comment from the tedious rent-a-quote bores at the TPA about these results, apart from the fact they obviously felt they couldn't run a positive (or even neutral) immigration story.

Refugee Action has produced a poll revealing what refugees and asylum seekers like about the culture, society and people of Britain.

But that isn't good enough for the nasty, racist Star. They have to turn it into yet another misleading article about benefit-scrounging foreigners 'flocking' to the UK for the 'handouts'.

Express hopes its readers don't speak French

On 8 February, the Express led with this headline:

The use of 'handed' in that context is deliberately designed to make it sound as if these immigrants are getting preferential treatment. They don't need to apply for jobs - they're just 'handed' them.

And the sub-head includes the emotive 'invasion' which is not a word that has many positive connotations. It almost goes without saying that the BNP had an article based on the Express' story - titled 'British People Put Last' - on its website before the day was out.

But a week before that, the Express had another anti-immigration splash on its front page - one of their completely baseless specials - which deserves more in-depth comment.

It was standard fare, starring the dastardly French, foreigners intent on reaching Britain, and a lot of anonymous quotes instead of facts.

Here's what the Express wanted its readers to believe: the French had arrested 124 illegal immigrants, then let them go, and every one was going to end up in Britain.

The headline was a classic scare. The article, by Nick Fagge, began:

The French set 124 illegal immigrants free yesterday – knowing that last night most would be on their way to Britain.

A few sentences later, he writes:

Last night police sources said the migrants almost all wanted to seek asylum in 'soft-touch' Britain.

How convenient that the anonymous police source uses language commonly used by the Express.

Fagge seems a little confused about who these people were. He (and his paper) calls the group migrants nine times, illegal imigrants twice and asylum seekers twice. An MEP calls them illegal immigrants. The inevitable TaxPayers' Alliance quote refers to them as asylum seekers.

Such sloppy use of language is often a sign the writer isn't really sure of the story, and is a good sign it isn't very reliable. It also ignores the PCC's guidance on use of the correct terminology.

But the most important thing is this: were these people really on their way to Britain? The Express says they were because the Express thinks everyone is. Fagge says:

most of the 124 migrants were expected to be en route to Channel ports – and Britain.

He's backed up by the TaxPayers Alliance (of course):

'It’s shocking that British taxpayers will now have to foot the bill for these asylum seekers...The fact that so many asylum seekers are desperate to get to ­Britain over any other European nation shows we are a soft touch'.

Ah, so the TPA think the same as the French police. How convenient.

Then the Express quotes an organisation called Cimade:

A refugee charity admitted the UK is the 'obvious' destination because Britain has an obligation to provide for asylum-seekers, while France does not.

It is curious - not to say misleading - of the Express to suggest France doesn't have an 'obligation' to asylum seekers when that is clearly not the case. Fagge continues:

Cimade, a refugees charity, said the Corsican-drop migrants were 'free to travel where they like'.

A spokesman added: 'All look healthy and are well dressed for the European winter.'

Curiously, when the Mail rushed a copycat version of the Express' story onto its website, they merged all the quotes attributed to Cimade:

'They are free to travel where they like, with Britain an obvious choice for a new life. All look healthy and are well-dressed for the European winter,' a Cimade spokesman said.

There's just one slight problem with that: Cimade's website tells a slightly different story. In their news item, they say:

Surtout, ces réfugiés, qui ont manifesté leur volonté de demander l'asile en France auraient dû pouvoir accéder immédiatement à la procédure normale de demande d'asile et non pas faire l’objet d’une quelconque privation de liberté.

Which, as translated by Nicolas Chinardet, says:

Above all, these refugees, who have expressed a desire to request asylum in France, should have immediately been given access to the normal procedure for asylum application and not been subjected to any deprivation of liberty.

So whereas the Express and Mail claim a Cimade spokesman said Britain was an 'obvious' choice for these people, Cimade's website say they had:

expressed a desire to request asylum in France.

This was also reported by Midi Libre and Ouest France and by AFP who said - on 27 January - that one third of the group had already claimed asylum in France.

At first, Le Figaro suggested, via police sources, they might be looking for work in Sweden or Norway, and the Times of Malta reported:

They also told police they had wanted to go to Scandinavia, Ajaccio's state prosecutor Thomas Pison said.

Funny, isn't it, how the police and Cimade seem to tell the Express one thing and everyone else something different. Something that's not about Britain.

Indeed, none of AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, France 24 or any other media outlet seem to mention Britain at all.

Just the Express and the Mail.

The Express' reliable sources

The Daily Express doesn't believe in climate change. This front page from last week made that clear. The quote marks around fraud show it is a quote from someone else but the phrasing makes it clear the, ahem, 'world's greatest newspaper' is of the same mind.

That was emphasised again on Tuesday 8 December when their Environment Editor's feeble article about Copenhagen was given the headline A load of hot air!

That's their exclamation mark, not mine.

And the sub-head was 'Climate change talks are £130m waste of time'.

£130m? Guess where that figure came from.

Yes, the TaxPayers' Alliance. Who else? It's not entirely clear what use this figure is, or even if it is very accurate. For example, all their calculations assume every one of the 15,000 delegates stays for the whole eleven days.

Also, they have allocated around £54 million to the salaries of delegates (the wages they are being paid from their job, over the eleven days of the conference) based on a median wage of £72,713. With enviable accuracy, they say:

While many delegates will be paid less than £72,713, many political, civil service and business leaders will be paid much more.

Glad that's clear then.

The Express has a graphic of figures 'relevant' to Copenhagen: 15,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists, 140 private jets, 1,200 limos and so on. It includes five figures from the TPA's report as if they are fact.

And also - just to show how serious the paper is about the subject - the really crucial number in the climate change debate:

1,400 prostitutes offering free sex to conference pass holders.

But the £130m is what the Express leads with, although they don't attribute the figure to the TPA, or even - shock! - quote them in the article.

That's even more miraculous given the third paragraph:

Critics claim the conference of 192 countries, costing £130million, is a “waste of time”.

As the article rumbles on, you wonder: who are these critics? Who are these climate change experts branding Copenhagen a:

summit of hot air.

Not the TPA but...the Association of British Drivers.

Yes, that world-renowned authority on climate change.

Their website looks similar to the cheap, cobbled-together mess of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, who also only get coverage because tabloid journalists are too lazy to do anything but go to the usual quote-whores.

It's not immediately clear how many members the Association of British Drivers has, but they have less than 400 followers on Twitter and less than 370 fans on Facebook. They're that influential. They believe environment policies are based on:

politics and hysteria

and say:

Find out how emotive scaremongering about pollution and man-made 'global warming' are being used to intimidate you out of your car.

So when a journalist phones them up to ask them about Copenhagen, they aren't looking for a rational and informed reaction. They want them to say something along the lines of:

'the summit of hot air...it is a huge waste of time and effort which is likely to severely damage the economic recovery of Europe'.

Which the Express then turns into the basis for a whole article: headline by the Association of British Drivers, sub-head by the TPA.

Brilliant.

The lack of repeats on prime time BBC1 over Xmas

With the Express' front page about repeats on television fresh in my mind, I sat down to look through the Christmas Radio Times. The expectation of seeing new programmes and film premieres were low.

But something didn't seem quite right. The Express called the BBC the 'worst offender' for showing repeats. The Telegraph said BBC1 viewers would experience 'television déjà vu'. Tory MP John Whittingdale said the 'BBC in particular should not be relying on old shows'. The TaxPayers' Alliance were, of course, seething (are they ever anything else?).

And yet, looking through the BBC1 listings, it seemed the 'critics' were exaggerating.

Surely not?

Firstly, the BBC1 do have the Sign Zone almost every night (well, early morning), which is when programmes are repeated with signing. Over the two weeks, that accounts for 25 hours of repeats.

Is that what the TPA regards as 'tired' and 'unacceptable' from the BBC?

Secondly, it is quite clear that the prime time schedule of BBC1 throughout the two-week period beginning on 19 December has very few repeats at all. Here's an entirely unscientific look at the schedule:

19/12 - 5.45pm-12.55am - no repeats
20/12 - 6.30pm-10.55pm - repeat of Countryfile (60 mins)
21/12 - 6.00pm-11.35pm - revised repeat of Nigella's Christmas Kitchen (30 mins)
22/12 - 6.00pm-1.15am - no repeats
23/12 - 6.00pm-11.15pm - no repeats
24/12 - 5.45pm-1.05am - repeat of Shrek 2 (85 mins)
25/12 - 6.00pm-11.45pm - no repeats
26/12 - 6.00pm-1.10am - no repeats
27/12 - 6.00pm-11.30pm - no repeats
28/12 - 6.20pm-1.20am - repeat of Wallace & Gromit (30 mins)
29/12 - 6.20pm-11.50pm - no repeats
30/12 - 6.20pm-12.15am - no repeats
31/12 - 5.50pm-12.15am - repeat of Dead Man's Chest (140 mins)
1/1 - 6.10pm-10.55pm - no repeats

Which means there will be five-and-three-quarter-hours of repeats in 85 hours of evening/night television on BBC1.

Of course, there are repeats on during the day (can't do without Murder, She Wrote apparently), and BBC 2 are wheeling out old episodes of Terry and June, Are You Being Served? and other comedies for their theme nights.

But assuming the TPA aren't expecting the BBC to show new programmes all day every day - with the knock-on increase in the licence fee that would entail - how can their Chief Executive Matthew Elliott say that:

'churning out hundreds of hours of tired programming is unacceptable behaviour and will leave licence fee payers feeling ripped off. Christmas, more than any other time of the year, is when people want quality entertainment, and Auntie is currently falling far short of the mark.'

It is petty bit of anti-BBC criticism, and it's not even accurate.

And BBC1 is showing The Incredibles, which gives them a free pass in my book.

On the subject of the TaxPayers' Alliance, here's another quick 'audit' of how lazy the newspapers are in always going to the TPA for a bit of predictable outrage. This is how many times each paper (including their Scottish and Sunday versions) has published a quote from them in the ten days since 1 December:

Express: 19
Mail: 15
Telegraph: 9
Mirror:4
Times: 4
Sun: 3
Star: 2
Guardian: 2
Independent: 1

Elliott Matthew, from the entirely fictional NewspaperReaders' Alliance, said:

'Churning out hundreds of tired quotes is unacceptable behaviour and will leave newspaper readers feeling ripped off. People want quality reaction quotes, and the newspapers and the TaxPayers' Alliance are currently falling far short of the mark.'

Express repeats repeats story

The (ahem) 'World's Greatest Newspaper' is leading with the really crucial issues of the day again today.

More important than Obama's speech on extra troops for Afghanistan is the news that there will be some repeats on TV over Christmas.

A stunning revelation indeed.

Does the headline make sense? Not really. 'Christmas TV includes 600 hours of repeats' would be better. The way it is worded (with 'is') makes it sound as if 600 hours of repeats is all that is on.

The first version of this story to appear on the Express website - now removed - was so poor they hadn't even bothered to find a half-decent person to be outraged by this non-scandal.

Instead, they spared no expense in getting reaction from Mike Ward. Who?

Mike Ward, Daily Express TV critic

Ah.

In the updated version, there are a couple of quotes from politicians which the Express appears to have swiped from the Telegraph, whose version of the story appeared online at 7:30am yesterday. That's how groundbreaking the Express' front page is.

But they have managed to get one new quote about how the BBC is a huge disappointment. Guess where from? Yes, it's Matthew Elliott from the TaxPayers' Alliance. Where would the tabloids be without them? Elliott splutters:

'churning out hundreds of hours of tired programming is unacceptable behaviour and will leave licence fee payers feeling ripped off. Christmas, more than any other time of the year, is when people want quality entertainment, and Auntie is currently falling far short of the mark.'

Tired repeats are something the quote-machines at the TPA know all about. It's not immediately obvious why they think the BBC has to be better at Christmas than the rest of the year - surely most right-minded people would rather they were better for 50 weeks of the year, rather than two?

As for falling short on quality entertainment, has Elliott not seen Life? In any two minutes of that incredible series you will find more that is informative, interesting and intelligent than in anything his ludicrously predictable, utterly humourless, kneejerk organisation has ever said or done.

The repeats figures themselves seem rather underwhelming. For one thing, the number of hours is actually 580, as the story reveals in the third paragraph.

Also, 580 hours of repeats over the five main channels over 14 days only equates to about a third of their output. Given that the repeats figure includes films, that doesn't seem that bad.

Besides, wouldn't the Express be the first to complain if shows such as Morecombe and Wise weren't shown? Wouldn't that be yet another sign that British traditions are under threat?

And isn't a bit rich for the Express - the Express - to complain of repeats? The paper that put Madeleine McCann conspiracy theories on the front page for around 90 consecutive days. That has put Diana on the front page with tedious regularity over the last 12 years. That reheats racist columns. That in the last few weeks has regurgitated cereal, tea and mushroom stories.

Oh and, err, which paper was it that in December 2008 was complaining about the number of repeats on television over Christmas?

TaxPayers' Alliance and Mail team up to attack BBC

The Mail's latest pathetic assault on the BBC comes in a story about trees. BBC under fire for Autumnwatch tree giveaway costing licence fee payers £150,000 reveals:

The Beeb is handing out 300,000 free trees at a thousand different garden centres, nurseries and DIY stores nationwide.

Each sapling has cost the corporation 32 pence - £96,000 in total

Yes, that's £96,000 on trees, not the £150,000 claimed in the headline. But the story adds:

This summer, it spent £57,500 on giving away 250,000 packets of vegetable seeds at 23 pence per pack as part of its 'Dig In' campaign.

So in tree-planting and 'grow your own veg' campaigns linked to the nature series Autumnwatch, the BBC has spent £153,500 on seeds and saplings.

This is an excellent idea and - refreshingly - several of the comments on the Mail story think so too. (Just to annoy the TPA and Mail: If you want to join the campaign and plant a tree on 5 December, the Autumnwatch website has all the details)

Of course, when you see the words 'under fire' you know this is the work of some publicity-hungry, rent-a-quote group who want to see their name in the paper:

The Taxpayers' Alliance has accused [the BBC] of misusing licence fees as if it were a 'charity with a bottomless pit of cash'.

Yes, predictably, it's them. Susie Squire from the TPA adds:

'It is totally misguided for the BBC to blow huge amounts of licence-payers' cash on trees and vegetable seeds when there are numerous worthy bodies working on these causes'.

'Huge amounts of licence-payers' cash'? Really?

If you take the overall BBC income for 2009 as a starting point - which is £4.6billion - then £153,000 amounts to 0.0033%.

Even if you are feeling generous and work out the percentage from the licence fee and government grants (so excluding sales) then £153,000 equals 0.004%.

It's 0.0034% of the BBC's £4,491.7 billion 2009 expenditure.

It's 1,073 licence fees.

It's a non-story.

But we now know this: the TPA thinks 0.003% is 'huge'.

TaxPayers' Alliance: the media's friend

Hat-tip to Jamie for highlighting the Guardian's coverage of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

They point out that one TPA director, Alexander Heath, lives in France, spends only two weeks a year in the UK and doesn't pay tax in Britain. Oops.

Clifford at The Other TaxPayers Alliance, who has long campaigned to have the TPA reveal who funds it, has more.

But one stat from the Guardian is worth repeating:

In the last year the Daily Mail quoted the TPA in 517 articles. The Sun obliged 307 times, once bizarrely on page 3 when a topless Keeley parroted the TPA's line against energy taxes. The Guardian mentioned the group 29 times.

That certainly fits with the (very short) 'audit' this blog did in August. But for one paper to use one source 517 times in a year is lazy beyond belief.

Clearly, the Mail have taken Clifford's guidelines on Reporting the TaxPayers' Alliance to heart.

Express front page inspired by Littlejohn

The Express has plumbed many depths since Richard Desmond has been in charge, but today's front page must rank among its lowest points. Because, believe it or not, it has been inspired by yesterday's Richard Littlejohn column.

Sigh.

Sex swap police scandal is a story about the National Trans Police Association and it begins:

Police chiefs were last night accused of a scandalous misuse of taxpayers’ money after helping to set up a special support group for sex-change staff.

Except, the story doesn't produce any evidence that the NTPA has received a penny of 'taxpayers' money'. Indeed, the second paragraph proves as much:

The National Trans Police Association is in line to pocket thousands of pounds of public money after winning the backing of senior officers.

'In line to'? So it hasn't yet, and may not? Deep in the story, it reveals:

The Home Office said: “We have not provided any funding for the National Trans Police Association.”

And although there is no direct quote, the Express states:

NTPA’s communications co-ordinator Martha Hand ...said the organisation would be applying for public funds to promote its work.

Given that the group has 50 members, it's unlikely to be coining it in, even if any funding application is successful.

But a story about the possible use of public funds...your starter for ten is: who do you think is called on for an 'outrage' quote?

TaxPayers Alliance, you say?

'This is totally absurd and a scandalous waste of money'.

You could almost think the TPA think it's inappropriate? Who else? Yes, it's Tory MP Philip Davies:

'I don’t care if a police officer is gay, straight, trans-gender or whatever, I just want them to catch criminals'.

But Davies doesn't explain how this support organisation - along with the many, many others that are within the police - stops them 'catching criminals'.

Then up pops the Campaign Against Political Correctness, a group with a horribly amateurish website, to add:

'We don’t need organisations like this. It’s just madness'.

It's an interesting use of the word 'we'. Obviously the 50 members of the National Trans Police Association feel they do need it. Compare that with the, umm, 11 people who follow the Campaign Against Political Correctness on Twitter. So who is this 'we' they claim to speak for?

They say on their website that among the problems with political correctness is that tries to:

bully people into conforming with a certain point of view...It undermines personal responsibility and freedom.

But isn't the CAPC bullying people to conform to its point of view, and undermining personal freedom, by saying this group should not exist?

The Express reiterates the idea that the establishment of this group somehow stops them:

concentrating on fighting crime.

But as Jonathan pointed out yesterday, why is there no such article or outrage about the Christian Police Association? Or the Jewish Police Association?

And can anyone explain how the existence of any of these associations stops officers fighting crime?

The Express has now added some poisonous anti-trans sentiment to that spread by Littlejohn yesterday by putting on its front page a total non-story designed to do nothing but stir up animosity towards this minority group.

Who ya gonna call? TaxPayers Alliance

Writing in the Guardian in 2008, Patrick Barkham said of the TaxPayer's Alliance:

So far, journalists have yet to tire of the TPA's "this is a slap in the face for taxpayers" refrain.

And, nearly 18 months later, it's truer than ever. The TaxPayer's Alliance like to mention all their media coverage on their website. Which is helpful for doing a quick survey to see just how totally lazy and reliant on them certain sections of the media have become.

Going through their 'media coverage' section for the two week period from Wednesday 22 July - Wednesday 5 August, I did a quick tally of how often the TPA had been quoted in the main daily papers. The results:

Mail - 28 times
Express - 28
Telegraph - 20
Sun - 12
Star - 11
Mirror - 9
Times - 4
Independent - 3
Guardian - 1

So that's eight stories in the nationals every day (and that doesn't include the many, many local papers that quote them).

And the Mail and Express are using the TPA, on average, for two stories every day.

But it's even worse than that sometimes. For example, on 22 July, the Express had six stories quoting the TPA. The Mail used them six times in a day on 3 August, five times on 22 July. The Telegraph has also used it five times in one day (4 August).

It's a damning indictment of the abilities of journalists on these papers. As Barkham implies, it's not as if the TPA spokespeople come up with some sparkling piece of insight every time they are quoted.

So Fred Goodwin goes to Clarence House and the TPA says:

'A lot of right-minded people would see this as completely inappropriate'.

The same day, the same paper (Mail), a story about swine flu, brought forth this gem:

'Most ordinary taxpayers who are concerned for their health in the midst of the swine flu epidemic will see this behaviour as greedy and inappropriate.

Then there was this story, which meant the TPA just had to say:

'This is a totally inappropriate use of taxpayers' money'.

And this one about the old Commons Speaker:

'Now the Speaker is being investigated over his household expenses it would be completely inappropriate from him to remain in charge of the parliamentary expenses system'.

And this quote about the new Commons Speaker:

'It is entirely inappropriate for John Bercow to expect taxpayers to pick up this bill'.

And this about the BBC:

'It is completely inappropriate for BBC senior executives to use expenses to pay for tax advice'.

And yet somehow, the TPA are on speed-dial for the Mail, Express and Telegraph. It's solely because their journalists are after an easy quote, with the least effort possible, and they know the media whores at the TPA will offer them the 'isn't this awful' knee-jerk response they want.

Which for the purpose of informed and balanced journalism, isn't really...umm...appropriate.

(Check out the Other TaxPayers Alliance who campaign for fairer taxes, try to hold the TPA to account over its secretive accounts, and also expose some of the problems with TPA research. They point out that despite the name, the TPA only represent 0.04% of UK taxpayers. And it has a TPA quote generator.)

The police and Muslims round up

The tabloid narrative about the Muslim takeover of Britain has continued with three stories in the last couple of weeks about the police doing things to be culturally sensitive, and therefore doing things which are totally objectionable.

First there was the 23 July story Muslims could get there own police force. The emphasis, of course, being on 'could'. But probably won't.

Behind this is the news that victims of crime in London have been able to ask for a Sikh police officer, a way of providing victims with support from the same religious or cultural background.

But because Sikh's arent the enemy, that isn't the news. Instead, the emphasis switches to another religion. Guess which one?

Muslim crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.

So in the same way women officers often deal with female rape victims, Sikhs might get Sikh officers and therefore Muslims might get Muslim officers supporting them. Hardly controversial, and certainly nothing like a 'Muslim police force'.

Five days later, Mail clown James Slack got his knickers in a twist with Very PC police force issues its WPCs with Muslim headscarves complete with badge for mosque visits:

Women police officers are being issued with headscarves to wear when they visit a mosque. They are expected to put the scarfs on shortly before they enter the mosque, in keeping with Islamic custom.

Once again, it seems really difficult to understand the mindset where trying to do something to avoid offending someone's religion is regarded as a sop to extremists. How many people remove hats or caps when they go into a church? So why is putting on a head covering to enter a mosque deemed unacceptable?

In fact, the police have stated that the scarves could also be used to cover the exposed shoulders of plain clothes officers should they enter a church. But again, it's only the Muslim angle that is of interest to the media. Which includes the Express, Telegraph and Times, although the latter don't pretend it's wider spread than it actually is.

But notice how the first sentence deliberately makes the issue appear to be widespread. Every female PC entering a mosque has been issued with one, it implies. Well, not quite.

A few sentences later it admits this is only being done by Avon and Somerset Police. And then a bit later:

They have already been given to seven officers, including Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, and eight community support officers who work with Muslim groups in the area.

Right, so that's only 15 that have been given out in total and only 7 to police officers. That's out of around 143,000 officers in England and Wales. That is a whopping 0.005% of them.

Clearly it's an unstoppable tide of Muslim headscarves.

Then yesterday, it was South Yorkshire Police who were in the firing line. As part of an 'In Your Shoes' exercise, three female officers spent the day in various forms of Islamic dress.

Of course, when the Daily Star put their journalists in a burkha to 'see what it's like', they call it investigative journalism.

When the police do it, it's surrender. They're a 'bunch of burkhas' engaging in 'PC madness' and - according to the, sigh, Taxpayer's Alliance - a 'politically correct gimmick'.

The Star quotes one of the cops, Deb Leonard, who said:

'I have gained an appreciation of what Muslim females experience out in public in clothing appropriate to their beliefs.'

The Mail leaves her views to the last line, replying instead on the Taxpayers Alliance and the Christian People’s Alliance. No bias there then.

In return, four Muslim women

were shown around South Yorkshire Police’s custody suite and CCTV office and learned about the day-to-day duties of a police officer.

But if PC Leonard found it useful, and if it helped improve police relations with the Muslim community in Yorkshire - if only on a small scale - where those small measures could be important, what is the problem?

Indeed, any moves towards cultural sensitivity should be applauded. So why do the tabloids find these small events so significant, and so threatening?