The Sun on Tiger Woods crashing into a tree – He’s having an affair!

Whereas the Guardian have written a normal article based on FACTS. The Sun have taken it into their own hands to publish unfounded accusations.

Many other newspapers have covered the story, including the Express, the Independent, and the Times and none of them have given these accusations the light of day.

So where did the Sun get the accusations that firstly, Tiger had a row with his wife and secondly, rather more seriously that he has been having an affair. The Sun claims:

Reports in the US claim he has been cheating on her with party hostess Rachel Uchitel, 34.

“Reports in the US” seems to be a sneaky way to print wild allegations without substantiating them whatsoever.

The Independent also prints the allegations, but unlike the Sun they don’t make them the centre of the story, in the last line printing…

Rumours about the golfer’s private life surfaced this week with a tabloid newspaper speculating about marital unrest, but it had little evidence to substantiate its outlandish claims.

Note how a respectable newspaper doesn’t engage in wild speculation and even the claim of marital unrest is said to be “unsubstantiated.” Even though the Independent is a quality paper, if they had found out through sources that they trusted and believed that Woods was having marital problems or even an affair, it would have featured more prominently in the story.

None of the American sources that claim this affair, such as this, this and this have any actual evidence to back it up and the Hollywood Gossip names the newspaper the National Inquirer (which first made the allegations) as “the unreliable tabloid”

Even the Mail and the Express have not gone as far as claiming an affair, with the former claiming an argument, and the latter – surprisingly – having the decency not to print unsubstantiated allegations.

It just makes you wonder, how low will the Sun sink?

Jan Moir in the Daily Mail: Sickening Homophobia

Hagley Road to Ladywood announced it last week: anti-gay propaganda is back at the top of the Mail agenda.

Since Stephen Gately’s death last week, the Daily Mail has been desperately trying to dig up some dirt.

In spite of official confirmations that the Boyzone star died of natural causes, the Mail has decided that the unfortunate death of an innocent 33-year-old man is fair game (see, for instance, Paul Scott’s unashamed hatchet job the day after Gately’s death).

The lowest point was hit today by Jan Moir with her article “Why there was nothing natural about Stephen Gately’s death”, where this overpaid munter spurts industrial amounts of venom and homophobia. Look at this bit here (our emphasis):

“Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened. It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.

As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine. For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see”.

How do you call that? This appalling vulture takes two tragic cases: a young man who died in his sleep and another who hanged himself, to give off the most homophobic shit ever written in about a decade. What the hell has their sexuality got to do with their “hedonistic lifestyle”, let alone their death?

How obnoxious would it be if, the day after Jan Moir finally pops her clogs, opinion columnists start pontificating about “the dangerous lifestyle” of eating too much and earning too much money for writing shit articles in tabloids?

Is Jan Moir really that thick not to register that scores of heterosexual celebrities engage in the same “hedonistic lifestyle” she stupidly assumes Stephen Gately and Kevin McGee were leading?

And yet she should know better. Half of what her newspaper is about is that sort of sordid stuff. The Kerry Katonas and the Jordans, the Amy Winehouses and the Russell Brands, the Ashley Coles and the Steve Joneses…Or how about the list of heterosexual celebs who killed themselves? What stuff are you on, Jan Moir, to be capable of writing such a low, vile, judgemental little story in the wake of a personal tragedy?

How can such levels of intolerance be printed on one of Britain’s most popular brands of arse paper a mere two days after the news of yet another homophobic murder in London?

Is there a limit to the shameful, distasteful, hate-soaked drivel the Daily Mail can put into print?


This post originally appeared here on Hagley Road to Ladywood.

More Daily Mail Bollocks on Immigration

Caught in the act (again): tabloids recycle false statistics to make immigration sound more dramatic.

There are people out there who still refuse to accept the poisonous role played by Britain’s tabloids when it comes to race and immigration.

Many blogs have repeatedly pointed at the most blatant examples of inflammatory red top churnalism. When a concoction of outright falsehoods and half-baked myths is regurgitated and interiorised by millions of readers everyday, it’s not surprising that social cohesion is going out of the window and right-wing extremism is on the rise.

Today comes another spectacular example. The Daily Mail features a long piece by Harriet Sargeant titled ‘Feral youths: How a generation of violent, illiterate young men are living outside the boundaries of civilised society‘.

Now, this is a peculiar one because, although the whole piece is peppered with pathetic photos of models posing as ‘hoodies’, Sargeant’s article starts with laudable intent, seeking to explain a massively serious issue – notably the world of youth crime, teenage gangs, school drop-outs and so forth.

And yet, two paragraphs in, Harriet Sargeant gets mired in the usual, tiresome, scattergun Daily Mail-speak, a ‘Best Of’ of “welfare dependency”, “benefits”, “single mothers” and “Labour’s schools”.

You’d have thought, however, that at least on the subject of “teenage crime”, the Daily Mail would give immigration a rest. Not quite. Even that is the foreigners’ fault.

According to Sargeant, “the arrival of large numbers of skilled immigrants” is what “sidelined disadvantaged working class boys”. Quoting a 22-year-old man called Dave, she even writes that “[T]he local job agencies warned him he had no chance because he was English”.

Then the ‘churno’ cuts to the quick: “According to the [now defunct] Statistics Commission, of the 1.7 million new jobs created since 1997, a whopping 81 per cent have gone to foreign workers“.

Now, no doubt most readers would find such figures shocking. Many would start paying heed to rumours that “Britain is being swamped” or that “we need our country back”. How many, however, are going to check whether Sargeant’s “whopping 81 per cent” is real?

If they did, they’d discover that the claim is false and would probably conclude that this type of journalism is a disgrace. Because Sargeant may be free to believe whatever she wants. What is vile, however, is how she feeds wrong statistics to the public in order to back up her views. But either Sargeant can’t read and interpret figures, or she deliberately misrepresented them.

At the end of 2007 the Statistics Commission did indeed publish a paper called “Foreign workers in the UK- briefing notes“.

It showed that 2.1m jobs were created between 1997 and 2007. Of those, “about 1.0 million has been accounted for by UK nationals and about 1.1 million has been accounted for by foreign nationals”. And while my maths skills may have gone to crap, that is nowhere near the 81 per cent Sargeant was writing about. The percentage of jobs that went to foreign nationals is between 52 and 53 per cent.

Not only that. The same document (page 17) states that (in 2007), the employment rate of UK nationals was “higher than it was in 1997, an increase from 73.2% to 74.8%”, which means that more UK nationals were able to find jobs in the period mentioned by Sargeant.

So where does her “81 per cent come from”? Why did she pick that particular number?

Scouring through the same document, it turns out that the only “81 per cent” that can be spotted is the “net increase” of “foreign workers in employment”. From 7.5% in 1997, up to 12.0% in 2007, it amounts to an increase of “81 per cent” (see page 6 and page 9).

A few questions are in order:
1) is Sargeant thick?
2) did she pick the biggest number that was placed next to the word “foreign nationals” to add extra drama and effect?
3) do you call that type of conduct ignorant, dishonest or both?


This post originally appeared on the brilliant Hagley Road to Ladywood.

Liberal intelligentsia: bad for your health

The TUC is to consider a motion that denounces the use of high heels as part of a dress code, as a result of the effect it can have on women’s feet. This has resulted in one Jenni Russell denouncing the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, proposers of the motion, as joyless utilitarians who give the Left a bad name. One would be forgiven for thinking that this is the sort of thing which might come straight from the pages of the Daily Mail. Well guess what? It does.

As one expects, the Daily Mail article is laden with distortion, such as claiming that the TUC want to see heels banned because they are demeaning to women, and because they are sexist. As the above linked-to press release from the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists (y’know, the people we pay to look after our feet) outlines, they simply want the TUC to demand that employers look into the health effects of high heels as part of a mandatory dress code. Hardly militant feminism.

The liberal intelligentsia seem to have bought this distortion hook-line and sinker. The real kicker, of course, is that this is exactly the same nonsense that was trotted out last year, when the TUC released guidelines on safe footwear as a result of studies into the health effects of high heels and other stylish but painful footwear. Irony of ironies, though, the Daily Mail itself led the charge for safer footwear last year, with an article entitled “High heeled horrors”.

Presumably last year there was less capital to be made from denouncing the TUC as a PC, loony Left group of men intent on diluting life of all fun.

I would now like to take the opportunity to issue my own health warning. Being a part of the liberal intelligentsia is bad for your health. As has been demonstrated by Jenni Russell on Comment is Free, and will no doubt be repeated throughout the interwebz by everyone who thinks the Left really do idolize unisex grey jumpsuits and universal buzzcuts, the liberal intelligentsia has no credibility, originality or even basic research skills. This is bad for their health because, if they keep publishing such guff, and I meet them, I’m going to kill them.