Another wade through the Daily Mail mire

I haven’t been able to focus much today – there just seems to be so much terrible journalism and awful commenting that I just can’t bring myself to wade through any particular article. I’ll just try and point out a few things.

Firstly (via Mailwatch) comes a ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ bashing story… that as usual attempts to thoroughly mislead the reader – and succeeds: ‘Health and safety row over man who died in 18in of water as 999 teams were told it was too risky to rescue him‘. The article tries to give the impression that a man drowned in 18 inches of water whilst paramedics, police and fireman watched scratching their chins doing a health and safety assessment. Of course, this is completely untrue and Stephen Wright (the writer) is talking out of his arse. The facts are as follows:

1 – The victim (Karl Malton) was hit by a car as he walked down an unlit country road at 11pm, May 13th 2008.

2 – The driver pulled up and dialled 999 but was told to stay in his car and not try to find the victim.

3 – ‘Paramedic Sonya Lawrence arrived within 14 minutes but began to search on the nearside of the car, although it was damaged on the offside.

4 – Another 19 minutes later a second ambulance crew arrived and found Mr Malton, who had been thrown unconscious into the dyke by the collision. He was lying face down in the water and appeared to be dead. Paramedic Fergus White climbed over a barrier before deciding it was too dangerous to go down the bank.’

5 – After a further 28 minutes a team of firemen arrived and set up ladders and ropes on the bankside but were ordered to stop by senior officer Edward Holliday. Mr Holliday said: ‘I made the assessment that it would be inadvisable to enter the dyke until a properly trained and prepared crew arrived.’

6 – A post-mortem examination revealed that he had drowned but could not determine how long he had been in the water before dying. The inquest was told he would have been dead within ten minutes of entering the water.

All of this information appeared in the article and makes it clear that the headline is a complete lie. Again, I wonder how the Daily Mail gets away with doing this, do their readers not have the ability to process information contained within the article to realise that the headline is lying to them? What is clear is that it was dark and by the time the victim was found – face first in the water – he was almost certainly dead and by the time the fire service arrived he was definately dead, so why would they risk a half-assed attempt to retrieve the body when they could wait for a team better equipped?

The headline should read: ‘999 services wait for proper equipment and expertise before retrieving dead body’. Still, the Daily Mail readers are certain that ‘elf ‘n’ safety killed Karl Malton:

Too dangerous. Where the hell is the courage! The disregard for personal safety that fills any HUMAN BEING ..ARE THese people just programmed androids!

SHAME SHAME ON THEM ALL!- Dave, uk, 31/7/2009 17:20
Click to rate Rating 1974

Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you, that comment is 1974 in the green – and is just one of many along the same lines, all of them voted up. The old trick of saying everything in the headline, knowing not many Mail readers are capable of reading the small print seems to have worked again.

Secondly, the Daily Mail commentators – who let’s not forget are constantly telling us how afraid they are at the moral decline of this ‘once great nation’ into a violent hell-hole – are again supporting an act of violence, just because they do not agree with that person: ‘Vandal voters’ take revenge on Hazel Blears’ car, but she insists attack was ‘just kids’. Just a couple of comments that sum things up:

I heard this incident on the lunchtime news – AND I AM STILL SMILING!!! Silly little woman – get lost. She really does not get it – let’s hope the people of Salford take their blinkers off at the next election and kick her out.- j wright, Reading Berkshire, 10/8/2009 14:08

Click to rate Rating 298

Naturally this comment is in the green, whilst the next is in the red:

I have again read through a lot of these of comments and am horrified at the number of people who support tyre slashing, window smashing etc.

I am wholly in agreement with those that want new labour out and the expense system well and truly sorted.

BUT, I cannot support in any way this type of criminality.

Where does this nastiness come from?- Vaj, Savoie, France, 10/8/2009 14:06

Click to rate Rating 234

And finally, a story about beggars end with the comments showing just how racist some Mail readers are: ‘Professional’ beggars earning up to £200 a night to supplement their day job. Of course, our streets had never witnessed the terrible evil of beggars until all those filthy foreigners piled in (the story also fits the idea that immigrants are somehow raking money in by doing nothing – I wonder if Littlejohn will pick this story up…):

Its nice to see Gordons immigration policy working so well……- David, london, 10/8/2009 18:53

Click to rate Rating 44

Don’t tell me no-one knew this was going on, it’s just another scam many of them are foreigners doing what they do in there own country.
My answer is:- GIVE THEM NOTHING, they are better of than you are.- Jack Graham, Bingley UK, 10/8/2009 18:26

Click to rate Rating 31

On holiday in Spain 40 odd years ago there were beggars on the streets, we had none, now we have beggars from every corner of the globe. Our answer to these foreign beggars selling the Big Issue is always the same “YOU ARE THE BIG ISSUE” (facing our country today)!!!
ps: You have a ………. nice day too ‘cos you ain’t conning us. Goodbye
– Jon & Susie, Liverpool, The Land Of Beggars Belief, 10/8/2009 18:13
Click to rate Rating 31

would be interesting to know how many of these beggars are foreigners and not home growen ones ,, looking at your pic , who have arrive in the land of freebies under Nu Liebour.
clive, exeter devon, 10/8/2009 17:43
Click to rate Rating 47

This article steered well clear of revealing a little more about the origins of these people.
– William Owen, Cardiff, 10/8/2009 14:16
Click to rate Rating 230

The last comment is particularly enlightening, because the article does not include a single mention of whether the beggars are foreign. It does not even hint that the beggars could be foreign. But, that is the sad thing, the readers are so brainwashed into believing that all foreigners / immigrants are here for a free ride that they automatically link the article to this wider Daily Mail myth. The Daily Mail has sold this myth so well they don’t have to create all the links anymore, they can just rely on their moderated comments system on making the links for them. I also smiled when I thought that what the last comment is trying to say is: ‘I see they haven’t pointed out that all these bloody beggars are foreigners, so as not to upset the PC brigade’ – as if the Daily Mail was above stirring up hatred towards foreigners.

Sad how Daily Mail readers are so quick to believe that foreign beggars take home ‘£73,000’ a year. The only immigrant I know that takes home a huge salary and contributes nothing to the world is Richard Littlejohn.

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.