Complaint to the IPSO regarding inaccurate reporting by the Daily Express

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a formal complaint under the Editors’ Code of Conduct about the accuracy of the following article published by the Daily Express (online edition) on 29 November 2016:

Offending article

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/737651/Polish-Prime-Minister-Beata-Szydlo-Theresa-May-language-school-Poland-visit-downing-street

This is the headline of the Daily Express article by Will Kirby:

“Polish PM demands her language 'should be taught in BRITISH SCHOOLS' during UK visit”

This is the first paragraph of the article itself:

“POLISH Prime Minister Beata Szydlo declared that British schools should teach the Polish language after she met Theresa May at Downing Street on Monday.”

This is the second paragraph of the article.

“During a televised press conference, the Polish leader talked about “the option of teaching Polish as a language in British schools” after the topic was raised in a meeting of senior Polish and British politicians.”

The text of the Daily Express article refers to the “option” of Polish being taught.  The corresponding Guardian article reported the words of the Polish Prime Minister as follows:

“We also spoke about the support for the Polish community, we spoke about the possibility of teaching Polish as a language in British schools, we spoke about many different things that are important to those Polish people who live in the UK.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/28/poland-pm-beata-szydlo-theresa-may-teaching-polish-uk-schools

My emphasis has been added in italics to all the text quoted above.

Complaint

I wish to complain about the Daily Express’s headline and the first paragraph of the article.  The headline and first paragraph quotes the Polish PM as “demanding” that Polish “should” be taught in British schools.  But this is not what she said.  Later in the same article, the text refers to her “talking about” her desire that this be an “option”. The Guardian article quotes her as describing it as a “possibility.” 

The Daily Express has seriously misquoted the Polish Prime Minister, and on a culturally sensitive subject.  This is at the least a breach of the principle of accuracy in the Editors’ Code of Practice. 

“Demanding” that Polish “should” be taught in English schools, and suggesting that such teaching was “possible” are significantly different things.  It was precisely this difference which motivated, at least in part, many of the angry comments from readers.

Many Express readers took the Express’s headline and first paragraph as an accurate reflection of what the Polish PM said.  This is evident from many of the online comments.  I attach in full all the comments received as at 10:07am, 29 November 2016. 

Looking at the comments from the top, I list the first 3 commenters who objected to the alleged “demand” by the Polish PM:

Worldinmotion, page 10

Gofar67, page 11

Kimboy, page 13

There are numerous other similar comments.

Thank you for taking the time to deal with this complaint and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Theresa May should promise all EU nationals the permanent right to stay in the UK now

Since the Brexit vote, Theresa May has reserved the UK Government’s position on whether or not EU nationals currently resident in the UK can remain here with the same rights as now.  Her logic is that this should form part of the Brexit deal negotiated with the EU, in return for British nationals receiving similar guarantees. While this caution is understandable, it does not stand up to rational and moral analysis, and I will explain why in this article.

1.       The human dimension

After 40 years of EU membership, the vote for Brexit was a huge shock to everyone, not least to the 3 million EU nationals who have made their home in the UK.  2 million of those people are in work, and they account for 7% of the UK workforce.  It is worth noting that the proportion of other EU nationals of working age in work is higher (78%) than the equivalent for UK nationals (74%).

The shock of Brexit has quickly given way to insecurity, fear, and anxiety.  Brexit shakes the very foundations of careers, relationships, and whole lives built on the basis of the rights of EU nationals to live and work anywhere in the EU. The Brexit vote was also a clear protest against the numbers of EU nationals in the UK, who inevitably now feel less welcome.  The well-documented rise in race hatred since Brexit heightens this anxiety. 

EU nationals have been looking to the UK Government for guarantees. However, all they know so far is that their rights – and their lives – will go into the mix once Brexit negotiations are underway.  On current timescales, their position will remain unclear for as long as 2.5 more years: that is a long time for anyone’s life to be on hold. 

2.       The moral dimension

If EU nationals currently in the UK lose their right to stay, then their current insecurity will intensify hugely as they become subject to whatever new regime takes its place.  Those who lose rights to work and/or stay in the UK as a result of this process will be losing existing rights.  The lives of people who came to the UK in good faith to work and live will be turned upside down. The immorality of doing this should be obvious to all. 

Theresa May’s case is that stripping these rights would be a last resort only in response to a similar decision by the EU (which I will come on to later).  But two wrongs do not make a right.  If a political decision is immoral, then politicians should not be afraid of ruling it out as soon as possible, even if only for the sake of their personal integrity, and no matter who else is willing to take such an immoral decision.

3.       The legal dimension 

A decision by any country to strip residents of their rights to live and/or work there is likely to lead to a morass of human rights litigation, compensation claims, and widespread condemnation by international institutions and other nations.  The legal mess, and the political and economic consequences for years to come would be incalculable.

4.       The economic dimension

Our economy depends on the contributions of EU nationals currently working in the UK.  Many technicians, academics, and engineers, for example, plug UK skill shortages.  (The UK is already suffering restrictions in academic cooperation and recruitment.)  Many healthcare, factory, and agricultural workers plug labour shortages. The Brexit vote instantly made the UK a less attractive place for them and others to work.  Failing to guarantee their current rights to live and work for up to another 2 or more years exacerbates this problem. 

Both of these issues have also led to a significant loss of goodwill in Europe.  Some of our exporters can exploit the strong pound for now, but somewhere along the line we will pay a price on export markets as European consumers and businesses think twice before buying British.  Goodwill is essential to long-term business relationships.

A positive gesture and commitment from Theresa May to guarantee the rights of EU nationals would modestly lift the mood among those people affected and also on the markets, which respond to sentiment sometimes as much as to other more fundamental economic factors. 

5.       Political dimension

Now that we have a clearer picture of the downsides of the UK’s approach, we need to weigh them in the balance: Theresa May wants to yield these rights only once she is sure that the corresponding rights of UK citizens in other EU countries will be safeguarded.  Though formal discussions on this cannot begin until the UK Government invokes Article 50, the EU wants the UK to do this sooner rather than later. The currently delay on the issue being resolved is the responsibility of the UK Government.

So far, no EU leader has publicly hinted that the rights of UK nationals will be up for discussion.  Poland wants to ensure that the UK is not punished, and its 1 million citizens in the UK would have much to lose from any tit-for-tat measures.  Angela Merkel has made conciliatory noises, and the idea of Germany pushing such a move is ridiculous. 

If any EU nation was likely to make an issue, then we might expect France to.  However, President Hollande has stated that UK nationals in France are welcome to stay as long as they want.  No other EU leader slapped him down for speaking out of turn.  In fact, for the EU to make proposals to restrict free movement and the right to work would be unprecedented and out-of-character.  The same terrible legal consequences which I mentioned above would also apply to the EU. In short, the prospect of the EU making an issue of this is unthinkable.

Conclusion

The risk of the EU bargaining with the rights of UK citizens to live and work in the EU is minimal.  The consequences of the UK reserving its rights on the issue as regards EU nationals in the UK are all bad. The UK Government has drawn a battle line in the upcoming Brexit negotiations where none needed to be drawn.  Conspiracy theorists may argue that Theresa May’s tactics are more to do with her bargaining position on more vulnerable issues, like the City of London’s access to EU financial markets.  However, such a position would be even more morally indefensible. 

In conclusion, Mrs May has every reason to give an urgent, unilateral, categorical, humble, and warm reassurance to EU nationals now resident in the UK that their rights to live and work will be protected, no matter what.  

Statistics from: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Boris Johnson’s appointment as foreign minister: the embarrassing, the bad, the ugly ... and the solution

Boris Johnson’s appointment as UK Foreign Secretary has stunned a large number of people.  Those who voted Remain in the EU referendum are angry that someone who they regarded as spreading falsehoods and stirring up populist sentiment without a clear Brexit plan could be rewarded with such an important post.  As views differ on the rights and wrongs of the Brexit vote, I will focus here on Mr Johnson’s suitability for high office only on the basis of his litany of negative comments about foreigners.

Initially as a journalist, and more recently as an MP, Mr Johnson has:

a)      accused Barack Obama as being resentful of the UK because of his “half-Kenyan ancestry”,

b)      described Hillary Clinton as like a “sadistic mental nurse”,

c)       described Ugandans as “natives” who would do well to welcome back the UK as a colonial power in view of the mess in their country, as long as they did not later complain,

d)      likened President Putin of Russia to Dobby the elf, from Harry Potter,

e)      described Commonwealth citizens of Africa as “piccaninnies” (a derogatory term in the USA for black people) with “water-melon smiles”, and

f)       produced verse which described President Erdogan of Turkey as someone who has sexual relations with goats (together with obscene language about him).

A number of important senior politicians in allied countries have expressed shock and dismay at Mr Johnson’s appointment in the light of these comments. Mr Johnson has not acknowledged the reactions or apologised. Neither has Theresa May, the new Prime Minister of the UK. 

There is no doubt that Mr Johnson has used his talent for writing to say upsetting things about people from other countries.  There is no doubt that he, Theresa May and all Conservative MPs realise this.  There is no doubt that anyone in a professional job in the UK who said similar things would be in trouble with their employers.  I am a private tutor and I am sure I would lose clients if I published comments like Mr Johnson’s.

It is not normally possible to go through life upsetting many people and avoiding all the consequences, much less achieve stratospheric promotions.  But this is what has happened with Boris Johnson.  Can someone please tell me what is going on?

Actions and words have consequences.  These are some of the consequences I foresee in respect of Mr Johnson's words and his failure to apologise:

a)      A loss of goodwill from everyone and every group who has been insulted by Mr Johnson.  This includes the likely next president of the USA and a large number of representatives of nations who he has to deal with in his everyday work as Foreign Secretary;

b)      A corresponding loss of respect and negotiating strength with those people; if you insult someone, fail to apologise and then seek their cooperation, then the cost of that cooperation will significantly rise; this is human nature; Theresa May needs to acknowledge this issue to us and factor in the increased costs of such cooperation if she is serious about making a success of Brexit (her declared aim);

c)       Increased levels of distrust from everyone who Mr Johnson deals with; if he can think and say these things about certain groups of people, then what does he think about everyone else?  What has not been published?  Again, the costs of cooperation rises, even in respect of those who are not the victims of his insults;

d)      A loss of respect and goodwill towards Mr Johnson from the Civil Service as a whole, and the Foreign Office in particular; civil servants are professional and have to serve whomever is in power, however, they are human like the rest of us and we can expect that experienced and competent diplomats will be privately appalled at the thought of serving a political master who has an unapologetic track record of insulting people and nations around the world; Mr Johnson’s language would not be tolerated from even the most junior diplomat.  Mr Johnson has to earn the personal respect of those he works with, like everyone else;

e)      A huge loss of respect for Theresa May, both within the UK and across the world; whatever were the back room shenanigans which paved the way for Mr Johnson’s appointment (and subsequent immunity from criticism), Mrs May sanctioned them when she appointed him; she compromised her reputation and, worse still, she deservedly invites cynicism and contempt for her as a professional, and for her party, her government and the entire UK political system for as long as she refuses to engage with the public reaction to Mr Johnson’s appointment;

f)       An increase in alienation among the general public in respect of the political process; we have recently witnessed Tony Blair tell us that he would go to war again if he had a second chance, despite criticism from Lord Chilcott for not first exhausting non-violent means; we have seen a very divisive EU referendum campaign with very strong criticism of the truth of the claims made; there has been no acknowledgment of the fact that no one has voted for a government run by Theresa May, any of her ministers, or for whatever policy commitments she will now seek to implement. In the context of heavy criticisms of EU democratic processes, the hypocrisy of our growing home-grown democratic deficit is beginning to grate. Rock-bottom confidence in the political process is dropping further.

      On a more personal level, what is most worrying is not Mr Johnson’s comments in themselves, but his refusal to acknowledge that they are an issue. It is as if he and Ms May believe that they can ride out the barrage of criticism until they have some positive achievements to parade before us.  Then suddenly all will be well, and we will forget his past indiscretions.  But people who operate that way are not to be trusted: they have never grown up, always moving one from the wreckage of one mess to the next challenge before their past catches up with them.  Boris Johnson is this kind of character, and Theresa May is now complicit and co-dependent in his acting-out. As Tony Blair’s continued fall from grace demonstrates, deep down, people don’t really forget, even if they are a bit quieter during the good times.

      I once looked into the (very impressive) 12-step approaches to recovery from addiction of almost any type. Essential to the process of recovery from addiction is the acceptance of one’s mistakes.  Early on in the process are requirements for recovering addicts to set out an inventory of their faults, and then to take real steps to apologise and make practical amends for those mistakes, where possible.  This is effectively what parents and teachers teach children.  This is also what happens in the more unforgiving adult worlds of work and relationships where consequences can be more serious and long-lasting.  This is what Boris Johnson needs.  It’s painfully obvious.

      Please, someone, tell Boris Johnson that he needs to remove himself from the political scene for a long time and work on his stuff. I for one can’t bear watching this circus any longer.  Then Mrs May, please come clean with the nation, before our respect for you sinks any lower.

28 June 2016

The Editor
Daily Express

Dear Sir / Madam

COMPLAINT ABOUT ONLINE COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE ABOUT DAVID LAMMY MP

I read the article by Cyrus Engineer in yesterday’s online edition entitled: “'Sore loser' David Lammy continues desperate attempts to defy Brexit vote” (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683770/Brexit-david-lammy-second-referendum). 

I then read the reader comments and was concerned to see many racist and insulting comments about Mr Lammy.  At the time of writing this letter, this comments remained online and further similar ones had also appeared.  These are the comments I am most concerned about:

“that evolutionary failure”

“He’s not even British…. Let him go back to the land of his fathers or mothers.”

“Time to send him back to the land of his parents.”

“We do things right in a democracy, far from the jungles of South America where your ancestes (sic) came from.”

“Or better still, go back home to Africa.”

“Get back to Africa Lammy, that is your homeland.”

“Doubly annoying as he isn’t an indigenous English person.”

“He is the same price as Diane Abbot and the bighead Chuka Umunna.”

“Bitter blacks…”

“He’s not even English so shy does he not just shut up?”

“Hear hear, he doesn’t look very English to me.”

“There is another one who should be grateful we let his ancestors into the Country, wherever they came from.”

“Sack the b*****d and vote for a true British person who will represent you and your country.  Vote UKIP.”

“Lammy was never going to play the white man, was he?”

My requests

1.       Although there is a button “Report this comment”, the fact that so many offensive comments are still visible today indicates that your moderating and monitoring procedures are not effective enough to ensure that offensive comments are deleted promptly.  Could you look into this?

2.       Although the article itself was not offensive, it cited inflammatory views which I believe would have encouraged many of the offensive commenters. Specifically, the article included the following:

“Reacting to his BBC interview one viewer tweeted: "Ask David Lammy if the remain vote had won, would he still be saying it was advisory? This man a total imbecile and no nothing politician."

Another said: "You’ve lost all credibility as an MP. You’re a disgrace."

A third branded the 43-year-old: "So anti-democratic it’s shameful. This isn’t best two out of three."

These were just views of selected Leave voters with little news value.  I question the value of them being included in a serious political article. 

3.    As a matter of honour, I believe that the Express should apologise to Mr Lammy for quoting offensive views about him, and more seriously, for tolerating racist comments about him.  The Express’s position on the referendum was clear, but just like everyone else, Mr Lammy remains entitled to his good name and not to be insulted.

4.    Generally, I would like to see the Express adopt a more considered and conciliatory tone on the referendum issues, given the very close result.  There have been many recent reports of racist insults against foreigners living in the UK, which some are attributing to the referendum result.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issues, in my view, the nation is in a fragile political situation and would benefit from journalism which sought to build bridges between people by listening to their concerns and reporting on issues in a balanced way. I ask the Express to really reflect on this seriously at this time.

I have copied this letter to Mr Lammy and my local MP, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

  

THE HUMPTY-DUMPTY PLAN FOR PUTTING ENGLAND BACK TOGETHER AGAIN

Is our nation (England) a Humpty-Dumpty, or can we put our country back together again?

This is my proposed 10 point plan:

1.       Pro-EU politicians from all parties to lay aside their personal and party differences in order to work together in Parliament and in the country.

2.       Elder statesmen and stateswomen from all parties, such as Lords Kinnock, Ashdown, and Heseltine, to work together to help unite the country and the pro-EU politicians in their parties.

3.       Senior politicians to address the nation together on TV soberly, respectfully and maturely about the current political situation, emphasising the need to maintain a warm welcome for all people from other countries who live and work in England.

4.       Senior politicians to emphasise that we need to unite as a nation, referring to these issues:

a) England to understand better that London and many other places need to operate in the EU and across the world in order to continue to generate wealth for the whole nation,

b) London and prosperous “Remain” areas to understand better that they need the resources and skills of the whole nation, and that they take seriously the equality gap in our nation,

c) Older people to understand better that the younger generation mostly want to be part of the EU and that the world has changed incredibly since their childhoods,

d) Younger people to understand better that the sacrifices and work of our older people have built the foundations for our modern world and lifestyles, but that the pace of change in the world can feel overwhelming to many,

e) White English people to understand better that we need workers from other countries to maintain our standards of living, and that we should welcome them and be grateful to them for what they do,

f) People who have come to England from other countries to understand better that it is hard for some people to come to terms with the changes to English life brought about by immigration in recent decades.

5.       Senior politicians to explain to the nation the nature of the steps which would be required to implement a Brexit, and that the referendum itself is not enough because of the many policy decisions needed for any specific Brexit scenario.

6.       These senior politicians to challenge Brexit politicians to state to the nation as soon as possible, and very clearly, their position going into negotiations with the EU, on key issues like:

a) freedom of movement between the UK and the EU,

b) the status of EU citizens currently resident in the UK,

c) to what extent the UK will cover subsidies which currently come from the EU for farmers, government bodies, and charities, and

d) access to the single market

7.       Pro-EU MPs and Lords to work together to dissolve Parliament, call a fresh General Election, and agree an electoral pact so that only one strong pro-EU candidate stands in each constituency.

8.       Pro-EU political leaders to make it clear to voters that every vote in the General Election for a pro-EU candidate will be a vote against the implementation of a Brexit.  However, if a pro-Brexit Parliament is voted in, they will not seek to undermine it.

9.       Senior politicians to meet leaders in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the EU and other nations to explain what is going on in England, to listen humbly to their feedback, and to report back to the nation on how our relations with other countries could be restored and improved.

10.   All this to be done as soon as possible.

To Brexit or not to Brexit? Thinking about the issue from the perspective of values

You may be someone who is not very interested in politics, but much more interested in society and the world from a humanitarian or spiritual perspective.  I have written this article to inspire you to think about the issues in the referendum on EU membership on 23 June starting from the perspective of values rather than policies.  This article will not tell you how to vote and I have tried to remain neutral.  

Relationships

Relationships are important.  We all need them. We all need each other.  No reasonable person would ever dispute that. Relationships are built on goodwill, trust, mutual respect and consideration for the needs of others.  We can see this in our families, workplaces, and local communities. 

The same is the case for nations.  Nations which attack, threaten, or disregard the needs of other nations are not popular, and are often feared, hated, and opposed.  On the other hand, most people admire people and nations who build strong relationships of trust, support, and understanding.   So we could try to work out how much, or how little, the EU helps the UK to have good relations with other countries in Europe and beyond.  We could also look into how Brexit alternatives will or could help the UK to have good relations with other countries in Europe and beyond.

Ideas versus actions

Two ideas which are dear to the hearts of the supporters of the two campaigns are “control” and being “stronger together”.  Vote Leave say that we in the UK should “take back control” from the EU, and “Stronger In” (the “In” campaign) say that the UK will be stronger if it stays connected with other countries in the EU. 

It might seem that “control” and “being stronger together” are both good things.  But like all ideas, they are just neutral concepts: it depends on what we do with them.  Actions speak louder than words.  Bad people and nations can exercise “control” over others in ways which damage or ignore their legitimate interests.  Many empires of the past, e.g. communist Russia, have been criticised for the control they exercised over neighbouring or far-off countries.  

Likewise, “being stronger together” can mean that countries do bad things together which they might not have done alone.  For example, the second Iraq war of 2003 was led by the USA but may not have happened without the involvement of the UK and other countries. 

Taking the debate back to EU membership, we can ask ourselves how much the EU controls us, fairly or unfairly.  What are the policy areas which the EU has most influence over, and is the EU unfairly stopping us in the UK from doing things which most of us want to do? Is a loss of control a good thing when we share power with other nations and so do things which we could not do alone? What has the EU achieved as a result of nations working together?  Are those things bad or good, and will they continue? What alternative policies or ideas does the Brexit campaign have for the UK and Europe and how realistic are they?

Social justice

People with goodwill care about helping those in need.  The UK is a wealthy country though many people still have many needs.  Many other countries across the world are on average a lot poorer than us.   To what extent does the UK and the EU try to help poor people?  What do they do now and what will (or could) be different or better in future, whichever way the vote goes? 

The politicians

EU membership is a huge political issue.  Our relations with the EU depend to some degree on the qualities of our politicians who, like us, are imperfect.  Have we considered what the politicians of each campaign and EU leaders are like, personally and professionally?  Do we trust them?  Are they competent and realistic?  Are they motivated by ambition, ideology, greed, ill-will, or a desire to be popular and make history? Are they angry, destructive and care only about the needs of a narrow group of people?  Or do they have goodwill towards others, and want to courageously and professionally build a positive future for everyone?

The generation gap

One of the worrying aspects of the EU referendum campaign is the huge gulf between the generations.  According to all the polls, the young overwhelmingly back IN and the older people overwhelmingly back OUT.  It is important that the generations communicate with each other so that they understand each other’s perspectives.

Brexit would mean a big change to the status quo, and would need to be implemented more by younger than older people.  Perhaps for this reason older people have a greater responsibility to understand the young, to communicate to them their reasons for wanting Brexit, and to share their vision for the UK’s future outside the EU.  For me, a very bad outcome would be a knife-edge victory for Brexit which the younger generation had to implement over the coming years while overwhelmingly disagreeing with it.

More information
Politics is about detail, and voting is about making an informed decision, as best as we can.  We would do well to investigate what the EU does, and the visions and policies of both referendum campaigns for the future.  It is worth investigating at least a few issues which we are especially interested in e.g. trade, international relations, immigration, and health.  Bear in mind that there are always trade-offs and compromises in politics – you can’t always get what you want. So it is important not to focus on just one pet issue.  Here are a number of resources:

The “Stay” campaign:     http://www.strongerin.co.uk/#2qz9JdCLWYVprGEt.97
The “Leave” campaign: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/
BBC “Reality Check”        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388  This part of the BBC website analyses the claims of both campaigns regarding the key issues.
Open Europe                     http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/                 This is an independent think tank respected by both sides, and provides more serious in-depth analysis.  I recommend subscribing to the daily updates.                    

Final thoughts

EU membership is such a big issue that it can be hard to really know what to do.  If you are really struggling to make sense of it all, then perhaps you could bring it down to two issues:

a)      which side do you instinctively feel is more trustworthy?

b)      it is better to vote on the basis of goodwill and positivity, not anger and negativity.

And by the way, please vote!