Mail readers: "nothing wrong with murdering gypsies"

A Conservative councillor in North Wales has found himself in a spot of bother after allegedly telling a meeting that Hitler "had the right idea" when it came to dealing with gypsies. As this idea involved sending nearly a quarter of a million innocent men, women and children to the death camps, it's understandable that quite a few people are now calling on the councillor to resign.

Even the Daily Mail's coverage is fairly critical in tone:

Tory mayor faces calls to resign after claiming Hitler had the ‘right idea’ about travellers
A mayor has provoked outrage by allegedly claiming Adolf Hitler had the ‘right idea’ about dealing with Germany’s gipsies.

However, the paper's readers are only furious with one thing - the fact that the councillor is being criticised. Sort the comments in order of "green arrows" and you quickly discover that hundreds of Mail readers think that gassing people to death is a perfectly sensible course of action:


A bit further down there are fewer green arrows but the messages are still getting a positive reaction:


Yes, you read that correctly - according to RP in Daventry, the "great majority" of people in England think that gypsies and travellers should be sent to the gas chamber. And at least 18 readers of the Daily Mail agree. It does make you worry. Although perhaps we shouldn't be suprised - I've pointed out before that many of the Mail's readers are keen on a spot of recreational gypsy-killing.

To be fair to the Mail's readership, most of the commenters don't explicitly support genocide. They prefer to complain about yet another example of political correctness going mad and how you can't say anything anymore without the thought police locking you up and so and so forth:


And of course someone had to quote Voltaire:

However, cast your mind back a fortnight to 11 November, when a small group of Islamic extremists protested against Britain's armed forces by burning poppies during the two-minute silence. Did the Mail's readers rush to defend the protesters' freedom to express their views, however, abhorent many people found them? Did they fuck:


But perhaps the most interesting reaction was the almost 500-strong net "red arrow" rating to the person who said this:

Freedom of speech: only applicable when we agree with what's being said.

Poppycock: in which a cock talks about poppies

Richard Littlejohn spends the bulk of today's column calling on his readers to break the law, suggesting they emulate a convicted killer by opening fire on anyone they find inside their house or, indeed, passing by outside. As I pointed out a while back, extrajudicial killings are to be welcomed in Mailworld, but only if done by white people.

In order to pad out the rest of his page, violent criminal (and economic migrant) Littlejohn joins the Mail chorus in attacking the BBC over Poppygate:

"Some Left-leaning broadcasters and mainstream politicians are sporting poppies already, even though there are more than two weeks to go to remembrance Day ... Someone should quietly explain that wearing a poppy in the middle of october is as inappropriate as having easter eggs at Christmas."

Obviously Littlejohn knows much more about this issue than those chancers at the Royal British Legion, who just yesterday told an obscure little paper called the Daily Mail:

"It's really down to the individual as to when they choose to wear their poppy. We would never say they're wearing their poppy too early."

But, hey, what do they know about anything?

Also, Dickie, I think you'll find that "Remembrance Day" takes a capital R. Why do you disrespect our fallen heroes so?

"Strict rules"

It doesn't take much to get the Mail outraged, especially when the BBC are involved. You can just imagine the furious anger that would be directed at the corporation if any presenter appeared on screen in early November without wearing a poppy - "BBC betrays our heroes" sort of thing - but today the paper decided to scream blue murder because Aunty has allowed people on screen wearing poppies "too early".

BBC's blooming error: Charity collectors criticise presenters for wearing poppies too early

Gosh. How awful of them. Tell us more, Anonymous Daily Mail Reporter.

"Various BBC personalities sported poppies this weekend despite the fact that volunteers across the country will not be ready to start collections until next weekend. There are strict rules governing the period during which the Royal British Legion is allowed to sell the poppies and the organisation even wrote to inform the BBC of the dates its campaign would begin."

Strict rules, you say? What does the Royal British Legion have to say about this terrible breach of protocol?

"According to the Royal British Legion, the BBC has done nothing wrong. 'What we do say to people is that when you receive your poppies – organisations, retailers, whoever – we set guidelines and say the national launch will be from 28 October,' said a spokesman. 'But it's really down to the individual as to when they choose to wear their poppy. We would never say they're wearing their poppy too early.'"

Ah. So actually what happens is that the RBL send their poppies out to sellers and, at the time, tell them that the national campaign will start on X date and that you shouldn't sell them before then, although that's just a guideline, not a rule. So who is furious about the breach of these strict rules?

"Sue Cornwell, who co-ordinates poppy sales for the Amersham branch of the charity."

Oh. I see. What's got Sue's goat?

"There is a strict date when you can buy a poppy and make your donation, and it has to be from 30 October."

The Royal British Legion, which actually runs the campaign, says there is nothing wrong with sprouting poppies in October. The only person the Mail can find to stand up their story is one collector from one regional branch, and even she doesn't say that people shouldn't wear them before 30 October, just that collectors can't sell them before this date. And she seems to have got her dates wrong, as the RBL actually says this year's campaign starts two days earlier on 28 October.

The fact that the national campaign directly contradicts both Ms Cornwell and the Mail's entire story may explain the slightly clumsy headline about "charity collectors". The original headline - which can still be seen on the homepage, the title bar and the URL - reads:

BBC presenters criticised by charities for wearing poppies too early

Not just one charity, note, but charities, plural. Even though the only charity involved says the BBC has done nothing wrong and there is no sign of any other charities getting involved in the "row". What we've got is ONE person complaining. One. Out of a population of 60 million.

There could be an interesing story here about the pressure on politicians and other public figures to be poppied-up at the earliest opportunity in order to show that they "care". But once again the Mail lets its own agenda get in the way of the facts, even when quotes in the story contradict the rest of it. Can the people who work there really justify calling themselves "journalists"?

UPDATE!
The Mail has now updated the version of the story on its website. The anti-BBC quote from Ms Cornwell has been extended, but the supportive line from the British Legion is drastically scaled back and the phrase "According to the Royal British Legion, the BBC has done nothing wrong" has vanished altogether. It's an even more shamless attempt to attack the BBC without letting the facts get in the way. Pathetic.