Monthly Archives: November 2010

The Daily Mail knows ‘Why suicide bombers are Muslim’

I haven’t had time to post much recently as I’ve been busy with a project that should be finished at some point this week/end. I’m perhaps also running out of patience with a media that will repeat any rubbish as long as it pushes a few buttons or causes a bit of controversy. If it’s about Muslims then any kind of conjecture will happily be published, case in point this article currently on the Mail website:

Muslims

Seriously. That is the headline: ‘Why suicide bombers are Muslim (lack of sex)’.

How can anyone explain how a newspaper in a supposedly regulated, responsible industry could publish that?

The controversial psychologist in question is Satoshi Kanazawa who – from what I have read – seems to exist to talk absolute shit simply to sell books. His theory is explained by the Daily Mail as follows:

The linking of suicide bombers with sex made this one of his most controversial theories.

But while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim, says Kanazawa.

Kanazawa states that in societies where polygyny is allowed – taking more than one wife, such as in Islam – there is a necessary number of men who are unable to mate because of the simple mathematics involved.

He says this is what makes men more violent or aggressive – they are competing for a mate.

According to his theory, his increased competitive pressure on men ‘increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates because they have little to lose and much to gain by doing so, compared to men who already have wives.’

This is why, across all societies, polygyny increases violent crimes, such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors like economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy and world regions.’

He goes on to say that the idea that 72 virgins await a martyr can inspire young men in this situation to go on to become suicide bombers.

He writes: ‘For young, low-status Muslim men who are excluded from any mating opportunities because of polygyny among older, higher-status men, even such a vague promise in the afterlife begins to be appealing in light of their bleak reproductive prospect on earth.’

I’ll be honest I haven’t the patience to even begin to pick through this rubbish, I’ll simply cheat by nicking a comment from the Independent website that also covers the claims (without the Daily Mail headline about Muslims):

Note to Dr K, and any other ‘evolutionary psychologists’.

There’s this thing called scientific method. It goes something like this:

1. Make observation
2. Formulate hypothesis to explain observation
3. Design experiment to test hypothesis

Take careful note of stage 3. It really doesn’t work nearly so well if we go:

1. Make observation
2. Formulate hypothesis to explain observation
3. Sell book touting untested hypothesis as ‘science’.

Well ok, I guess it works for you and Gillian McKeith if by ‘works’ you mean ‘generates cash for very little effort’. But it’s still cheating.

The answer to the rhetorical question is always likely to be ‘NO’

The Daily Mail headline: ‘Is wi-fi radiation killing off trees? Study blames computer signals for dying leaves‘.

The claims made at the start of the article:

As if our magnificent trees didn’t have enough problems, they’re now being threatened by our emails…

Now researchers say radiation from wi-fi networks that enable our burgeoning online communications may be their latest enemy.

Trees planted close to a wireless router had bleeding bark and dying leaves, according to the study in Holland.

The revelation will raise fears that wi-fi radiation may also be having an effect on the human body and supports parents who have campaigned to stop wireless routers being installed in schools.

So, not only does the research reckon that trees are dying because of Wi-Fi emissions, but the Daily Mail goes a good few steps further and suggests that the study adds weight to the paranoid Mail readers who believe that it also damages the body. The reporter – Niall Firth – really is taking bad science reporting to new lows when you skip to the end of the article for the nugget of truth:

The Wageningen University scientists behind the research, which has not yet been published, said that further studies were needed to confirm their findings.

The Dutch health agency issued a statement, stressing that ‘these are initial results and that they have not been confirmed in a repeat survey’.

It added: ‘There are no far-reaching conclusions from its results. Based on the information now available it cannot be concluded that the wi-fi radio signals leads to damage to trees or other plants.’

Other scientists have expressed scepticism. Marvin Ziskin, a professor of radiology and medical physics at Temple University in Philadelphia, said: ‘Stuff like this has been around a long time. There’s nothing new about wi-fi emissions. Scientifically there’s no evidence to support that these signals are a cause for concern.’

But Niall Firth – although he must have read this – still went ahead with the introduction of the article and the bit about how such research was likely to encourage fearful parents to worry more about Wi-Fi in schools. He does find time to mention the worried parents one last time:

In 2007, a BBC Panorama documentary found that radiation levels from wi-fi in one school was up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation.

Scary stuff… Then you read the ‘however’ that follows it:

However, the readings were 600 times below government safety limits.

So parents do not need to be worried then, even though the start of this article clearly tries to ramp up the fear.

As for that headline, well, as usual if the Mail is asking a rhetorical science question the answer is 99% likely to be ‘NO’.

In Osborne we trust…

So, the Irish economy is going to be supported by billions of pounds of loan from a central EU pot, along with around £7bn directly from the British government. At this point Football365’s Mediawatch has drawn attention to this gem of an article written by George Osborne for the Times in 2006:

A generation ago, the very idea that a British politician would go to Ireland to see how to run an economy would have been laughable…Today things are different. Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking, and that is why I am in Dublin: to listen and to learn…They have much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn

Considering our own massive bank bailouts and quantitative easing perhaps we did really learn to manage our economy the Irish way.

Daily Mail invent Al Qaeda link

The Daily Mail has claimed this in a headline today: ‘Was it a training exercise? Loch Lomond forest blast is linked to Al Qaeda‘, which immediately begs the question: who has made this ‘link’? The answer, unsurprisingly is they have. Calum Murrray, Strathclyde Police Chief Superintendent, has stated clearly that:

At the moment it would be unhelpful to speculate on what caused the explosion and we are just giving the public the facts but there will be a serious investigation which will take a number of days.

Which seems to me is a way of asking for the media not to immediately start suggesting that this was an explosion caused by an Al Qaeda training camp. Congratulations to Charlotte Gill for this shameful reporting which clearly tries to implies that the Police have made a link, when in fact she did.

Goverment provides a grant, council gets the blame

Another council has become the victim of Daily Mail lies: ‘Fury as council spends £900,000 on refurbishing a travellers’ site‘. The article claims that:

A council came under fire today over plans to spend nearly £900,000 refurbishing a travellers’ site.

Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire County Council owns Blackwell Farm, a 15 plot site near Milton, which is inhabited by 65 travellers.

Naturally, the Mail gets some thoughts from tabloid favourites the TaxPayers Alliance:

Emma Boon, campaign director for TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the council risks creating ‘resentment’ from other areas of the community.

She said: ‘This is a big wedge of cash to spend at a time when the Council and the Government is supposed to be looking for ways to make savings.

‘Clearly, the council has to provide some pitches and they have to meet certain standards, but this spending amounts to tens of thousands of pounds for each plot, it looks excessive.

‘When so much money is targeted towards one particular group in the community it risks breeding resentment among other local taxpayers, especially at a time when other parts of the community feel they are being hit by cuts.’

There is just one small problem with this: the council are not funding the project. In real terms, they are not spending anything at all:

The site is owned by Cambridgeshire County Council and managed by South Cambridgeshire District Council, but the work is being funded by a £894,000 grant from the Government’s Homes and Communities Agency…

Mike Davey, from the county council, said the money could only have been spent on improving traveller sites.

So, it was a government grant that the council received that could only be spent on this project. It also needs to be mentioned that these travellers pay rent and taxes and that the site is classed as council stock, so they have to maintain as they would any other council property. Furthermore, the project aims to make the site self-funded, so in the long run the project aims to save money and will make the travellers less likely to set-up illegal camps. Surely, in the eyes of the Mail, this is a good thing. The last detail in the article reminds me of a story that Littlejohn covered a while back:

Last year there were plans to apply for funding to erect a sound barrier along the site perimeter to shut out the din of the A14, but this has been dropped.

I wonder if he will resist a follow-up story?

Switch off, log on

So, the Guardian reports today that the Daily Mail website is ‘most popular newspaper website in the UK, with nearly 18 million readers a month, and is second only to the New York Times worldwide’. This is not really a surprise, just more evidence that a huge amount of people enjoy mindless rubbish. Whenever I see the unique visitor count of the Daily Mail website I am saddened that Bill Hicks is no longer around to spell out just why such banal tripe is evil. His comments on the apathetic, mindless mass of Americans who could be sleepwalked into submission by 24-hour cable TV showing American Gladiators have never been more timely.

At the time when the Coalition government dismantles the welfare state because of a recession caused by stupendously irresponsible and wealthy banks; the majority of people in Britain are more concerned with logging into the Mail website to check out the latest celebrity to gain or lose weight whilst angrily reading about the ‘workshy’. I mean, sure, the banks may have lost hundreds of billions of pounds and inflated house prices so that most people have either been priced out of the market or now own a property worth far less than their mortgage, but the real problem is that couple down the road who don’t work and have too many children. Sure, stopping their benefits will hurt children who have played no part in their circumstance, but hey, I’m an angry Daily Mail reader so it’s fine to punish children so long as I feel that my taxes aren’t being wasted on things outside of my immediate circle.

The point that Bill Hicks wanted to drive home is that the majority of human beings are so easily distracted by moving images and flashing lights that they spend their lives politically nullified, the American elite don’t need guns or violence to maintain their hegemony, just the ownership of 24-hour cable TV.

It depresses me that the Mail website has so many readers. I know a lot of them are not Mail readers, but people with hearts, brains and souls who stare despairingly into the intellectual and moral abyss, just to remind themselves that we live in a society that has some serious issues. What concerned Hicks’ most was that people were so badly informed about how the rich were screwing them over everyday, and how easily such people could be nullified by a puerile, unthinking TV schedule. As long as people want to buy celebrity magazines or read the Mail website to be titillated and enraged in equal measure the world will never improve. The Mail isn’t entirely to blame, it is serving an audience, an audience that does want to know all about celebrities. An audience that wants to hate immigrants, single mothers and other easy targets because it satisfies a simplistic need to be angry and to know who is to blame. This audience learns its behaviours, and behaviours can be changed. There is hope, but only a thin slither.

Meanwhile, David Cameron can visit China to discuss international ‘trade imbalances’ without anyone asking about whether there are any other forms of trade inbalance that are far more pressing. Cameron argued – along with the US – that an unfair trade balance currently exists. Essentially, people in Britain and the US spend too much money consuming products that are made in China. People in China don’t spend as much, as they generally save a proportion of their income in case of illness because they have to foot the bill for medical care. This means that we buy more stuff from China than we sell to them, they have a big trade surplus, we have a big trade deficit. David Camerson says that this is bad because too much money is flowing from Britain and the US to China, which means less money is available to the UK economy and we become poorer.

This is all well and good, but what about the trade deficit that the population of planet earth has with global corporations? Why not mention this if he really is concerned with the flow of money from one group to another. Is is useful for the UK economy to have several large corporations taking billions of pounds out of circulation? Where did  the billions of pounds of record profits that the banks sucked out of the UK economy from the average earner go? None of this money was left when the crash hit, by then we all realised that the banks had given it all away to already wealthy share holders or wealthy employees who took so much in bonuses that the banks had to be bailed out by governments.

When China generates a trade surplus the British government gets concerned that too much money is taken out of the economy, yet when Tesco announce that they have made many more billions in profit than they managed last year it celebrates because businesses are supposed to grow. Why do they not question where this money is going, or realise that very little is going back into the economy. Capitalism generates wealth, the trouble is that wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few who have soo much money they cannot possibly spend it, and if they do spend it, they aren’t interested in the sort of products or services offered by the average guy. This means that the average person has to survive on less, or loses their job because there just isn’t enough money left in the system.

Billionaires have massive trade surpluses. The average person is likely to have a trade deficit. The two are linked, you just never seem to hear about it.

Anyway, forget about the millionaires and billionaires, switch off your brain, log on to the Mail website and look at all the juicy celebrity gossip. Look at this immigrant with a council house and flat screen TV, they are to blame you know, they are taking your money, not us. Have you seen how many workshy scroungers there are? Loads, we tried to give them jobs, but they said no, they’d rather sit at home and let you pay for them. Remember, the poor are at fault, the rich are your superiors. Have you seen Simon Cowell’s house? He’s a fantastic success story don’t you know. Rich people are good. We can all be rich you know. Keep working, keep trying.You can always buy a lottery ticket. Here, have a picture of a horse in the back of a car.

It’s a sin

I listened to Iain Duncan Smith’s interview on Radio 4 this morning when he was introducing his ideas about reforming welfare. He made the point that what he wanted to change was the situation where people are disadvantaged by taking a job, in that they lose so many benefits that work forces them into greater poverty. When questioned about whether there were the jobs available to get people back into work – during a period of slow growth / recession – Iain Duncan Smith pointed out that part of the problem was that the current system failed to get people back into work even when the economy was growing and millions of new jobs were created.

He put it like this:

‘We created over four million jobs in those 13 years and…70 per cent of those net jobs were taken by people from overseas because people in this county weren’t capable or able to take those jobs. Surely that’s a sin.’

He clearly means that the sin is the current benefits system in that it does two specific things: it makes some people unable / unwilling to take a job because they are financially disadvantaged by doing so, and it fails to give others the skills that would enable them to take a job if they wanted it. The sin is not that foreign workers were able to fill the roles, but that British workers were not able to fulfill the roles for the above two reasons.

Naturally the Daily Mail – in their latest, shameless abuse of language – have distorted this meaning completely with their headline: ‘Handing millions of jobs to foreigners while benefits bill soared was a ‘sin’, declares IDS‘. Frankly, this headline appals me with its dishonesty. Once again, the Daily Mail blames the foreigner, this time they get the blame for the ‘benefits bill’ soaring because they took all of the jobs; which at least makes a change from blaming them for making the benefits bill soar by taking all of the benefits.

There are a few things wrong with the Daily Mail headline. Firstly, no-one was ‘handed’ a job. The whole point IDS was making was that the jobs created by a growing economy could not be ‘handed’ to those on benefits because they either were not capable of doing them or they could not afford to lose the benefits that would be taken away should they take up a position. Foreigners were not ‘handed’ jobs at the expense of those on benefits, rather they had to be brought in because of the failure of the current system to make work pay and to provide the relevant skills to those out of work. Secondly, the ‘benefits bill soared’ because those on benefits were either unemployable or not prepared to work for the reason given above, it has nothing to do with foreign workers.

Presumably the foreign workers actually helped the situation by filling the positions and paying taxes – generating public and private wealth – that would have otherwise remained vacant and would have prevented growth.

This is not just another misleading / dishonest headline from the Daily Mail, but an article that rams home the dishonest message from the first word:

Iain Duncan Smith today branded giving millions of jobs to foreigners while the benefits bill soared a ‘sin’ as he unveiled draconian sanctions to limit the handouts.

The Work and Pensions Secretary condemned the way so many posts created while Labour were in power went to immigrants rather than British workers.

As above, IDS said no such thing and was trying to point out that our reliance on foreign workers was not a New Labour plot to change the ethnicity of Britain, but it was caused by a benefits system that makes it more beneficial not to work and doesn’t provide the right training opportunities to the unemployed so that they can fill skills gaps in the jobs market. Labour didn’t give jobs to immigrants at the expense of the unemployed, they simply failed in the task of making the unemployable employable. After all, the market – the free market that the Mail loves so much – determines who gets a job and who doesn’t, the government can only try to equip the unemployed to fulfill the market requirements. This isn’t easy and in a globalised world this need is often met by the movement of labour – or immigration as it is more widely known.

As usual the Daily Mail ignores any semblance of complexity and instead completely distorts the truth to repeat a favourite, dishonest narrative of theirs: that in reality as ever, it is the foreigner who is to blame for our ‘soaring benefits bill’ and the unemployed citizens of the UK.


Update:

The article – as pointed out in the comments has now been extensively re-written and the comments have been deleted. The Daily Mail now has a more accurate story on their website, but they have already milked the outraged, xenophobic traffic from the previous headline and content.

What would you do?

If your front garden was so overgrown that the Royal Mail refused to deliver your Mail would you:

  • A – tidy your garden, pruning the overgrown bush and removing the branch blocking your front door; or
  • B – complain to the Royal Mail and run to the Mail screaming ‘It’s health and safety gone mad’.

Of course, it is B every time for people who want the world to revolve around them. Here is the front garden in question, complete with the lazy, whinging pensioner who refuses to cut his garden back:

Now, in my humble opinion I’m with the postman here. Why should they traipse through this shithole that could easily be tidied up by an obstinate misanthrope who would rather spend his energy writing letters and complaining to the Mail than sort his bloody garden out? The useless tosser – Kenneth Payne – making the complaint makes it very easy to side with the post office:

‘Seventy years ago we came through the Blitz and now people can’t even do their jobs properly. It’s health and safety gone mad.’

Yes, nice one, bringing the blitz into it, as if that somehow is going to support your side of the argument. It seems like your argument could easily be turned around, Kenneth, it seems that you’re also kind of saying that 70 years ago this nation survived a blitz and now it can’t even manage to prune a bush. Or are you saying that millions died to secure your freedom to have an overgrown garden? Or millions died so that a postman could do battle with your garden each day because you can’t be bothered to tidy it up, even a tiny bit?

I don’t normally swear, but every time I see another ‘Elf ‘n’ safety gone mad’ (seriously, that was the prefix used in the headline, in a national newspaper) that is just some lazy twat moaning about how the world doesn’t want to bend over backwards just because he can’t be bothered to pull his finger out of his Daily-Mail reading arse, I just want to punch people.

It isn’t health and safety gone mad, it’s the tabloid-media-publishing-this-shit-all-the-time-because-they’re-scraping-the-barrel-for-outrage-and-sales.

What is worse than leaflets stirring up racial tension?

I know it is not news to anyone that the Daily Mail is staggeringly hypocritical, but sometimes it is just worth repeating because they do something like this:

hypocrisy

Phil Woolas is a deeply unpleasant man who not content with authorising the forceful deportation of children during his time as Immigration Minister also decided to run for re-election by – and these are the word of the Daily Mail no less: ‘[embarking] on a toxic campaign of lies, smears and dirty tricks to “make the white folk angry” enough to vote for him.’ The Daily Mail is appalled at the fact  ‘that while he was stirring up racial ill-feeling against his rival, Phil Woolas was the minister in charge of immigration’.

It it worth mentioning at this point that Minority Thought and Primly Stable have already covered this story and they both move in the same direction here, the only direction possible, and that is to point out the Daily Mail’s own record of running ‘a toxic campaign of lies, smears and dirty tricks to ‘make the white folk angry’. Minority Thought puts forward the smears of Nick Clegg during the election campaign in which the Daily Mail asked: ‘Is there ANYTHING British about LibDem leader?’ Minority Thought then moves on to the recent announcement of a proposed strike on Bonfire Night by the Fire Brigades Union, to which the Daily Mail responded by rooting through the bins of union general secretary Matt Wrack; as well as knocking the doors of various family members to dig for dirt.

Both Minority Thought and Primly Stable give a few examples of the Mail’s efforts to stir up racial tension, but in reality one would need an encyclopedic memory to recall all of them, and it would make this blog post as long as the entire archive to list them. I’ll attempt to pick out a few of their more disgraceful efforts anyway, just to ram the point home that the Mail can hardly criticise a few leaflets, when it has thousands of newspaper editions doing far worse – under the current editor, Paul Dacre, so no excuses.

First of all, the Daily Mail repeatedly repeats the myth that immigrants and asylum seekers rush to the top of social housing lists at the expense of local, white folk. In July 2009 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released a report on social housing that the BBC summed-up thus:

There is no evidence that new arrivals in the UK are able to jump council housing queues, an Equality and Human Rights Commission report says.Once they settle and are entitled to help, it adds, the same proportion live in social housing as UK-born residents…

“It is largely a problem of perception,” he [Housing minister John Healey] told Today.

“The report shows there is a belief, a wrong belief, that there is a bias in the system.”

Most major news sources – including tabloid newspapers – reported this finding: ITN: Immigrant housing priority ‘a myth’; Guardian: Claims that immigrants prioritised for social housing ‘a myth’; The Independent: Study ‘ends myth’ of housing for immigrants; The Daily Telegraph: Immigrants do not get housing priority, study shows. Even the Daily Express headline is refreshingly accurate (even if they still shout it):  IMMIGRANTS ‘DON’T TOP HOUSING LIST’.

Accept, of course, the Daily Mail, who instead took a different angle:

Daily Mail lies

This article ignored the main finding of the report in order to protect the Daily Mail narrative that immigrants were being treated better than ‘indigenous’ Brits, a narrative that fuels much of the BNP support as well as the rising militarism of the EDL. Just before the Daily Mail completely whitewashed the findings of this report they were still pushing the myth hard:

‘The “British homes for British workers” plan, if it succeeds, will force councils to end the unfairness which sees immigrants with large families vault to the top of the council house list’.

Just last month the Daily Mail were again repeating the myth by claiming that Birmingham City Council was putting ‘Asylum seekers last in the housing queue: Britain’s biggest council decides to put its locals first’. The implication was clear: all other councils were still putting asylum seekers at the top of the housing queue.

Or what about the annual claim that the majority of new born boys in the UK are called ‘Mohammed’? This year the Daily Mail’s coverage earned the first Five Chinese Crackers‘ ‘Tabloid bullshit of the month award’, against some stiff competition given that every tabloid and some broadsheets were running with this myth. I’ll let 5CC take over:

Here’s why your version won:

  • It’s a crap trick. Adding together 12 variations of a name and saying the official list has Mohammed at number 16 without pointing out that the official list doesn’t add any variations of names together is just a bit dishonest.
  • As is not bothering to mention exactly how popular a name Mohammed is among Muslims.
  • Or that altogether, boys named every variation of Mohammed made up around just 2% of all boys. Actually, the number of boys named all variations of Mohammed actually took a slight drop since last year, but you didn’t mention that either.
  • It’s an old crap trick. I was mentioning it on my blog back in 2007, when the trick made it look as though Mohammed was the second most popular boy’s name.
  • It scaremongers unnecessarily about Muslims.

Or how about the Daily Mail coverage of Winterval (again, they are not the only newspaper guilty of pushing this myth)? At first the banning of Christmas was aimed at the ‘PC brigade’ but the Mail has now realised it has a much better target: Muslims. The PC brigade were banning Christmas in case it offended Muslims. Councils, not content with giving them all the benefits and free houses denied to good old British white-folk, they were now ‘pandering’ to their ‘demands’.

This may seem a ludicrous idea, but it is believed by many, including the EDL whose leader, Stephen Lennon, recently threatened any council thinking of ‘pandering to Muslims’ in an interview with the Times:

He said that “reluctantly” he uses the threat of a demonstration as “blackmail” to ensure that councils do not pander to Islamic pressure groups to change British traditions. “We are now sending letters to every council saying that if you change the name of Christmas we are coming in our thousands and shutting your town down.”

Who are these ‘Islamic pressure groups’? When has any Muslim ever wanted to ‘ban Christmas’? Phil Woolas used racial tensions to get re-elected, the Daily Mail use racial tensions to sell newspapers, whilst providing a stable diet of disinformation to bolster support and shape the ideology of right-wing extremists in the UK. Christmas has never been banned and councils have never renamed it. The myth has been debunked so many times it is worrying that a collection of adults believes it to such an extent they are writing to every council.

So, what is worse than leaflets stirring up racial tension? The tabloid press.

‘Pictured': The Daily Mail’s Victorian freakshow

The Daily Mail is very pleased with themselves today, having acquired some pictures of the ‘The mother aged 10 who had baby with her 13-year-old cousin’. The Daily Mail borrows its imperialist outlook and moral backwardness from the Victorian era so it is only right that they use the Victorian freakshow as a business model for their website. Pictured. Here is the freak, look at her, comment on this story, tell your friends – they’ve all heard about this 10-year-old girl, now they can see her!

This is not journalism. This 10 year old girl is a human being and a victim of her circumstances. This story should raise questions about why such huge disparities exist between the rich and the poor and how the children, being unknowningly born into their circumstances are always victims. Instead the Mail gloats about the power of their intrusion:

Today the Daily Mail publishes these first pictures of the feckless parents and can exclusively reveal details of their doomed relationship, including how after she became pregnant aged nine, their mothers allowed them to live as ‘husband and wife’.

What a scoop. We’ve dug up all the details of how a 9-year-old girl got pregnant, and we’ve got pictures so exclusive that we’ve added a Daily Mail watermark so no other paper can steal our fabulous new attraction. It took two ‘journalists’ to write this story: Nick Fagge and Tamara Cohen. They should be thoroughly disgusted with themselves, but I imagine they abandoned their morals a long time ago in order to accept a job writing for the Daily Mail.

I wonder if the PCC are interested in how the Daily Mail have invaded the privacy of this 10-year-old girl, given that the ‘in the public interest’ defence is designed to allow the public access to information that they really need to know, not to allow them access to information that is little more than an modern Victorian freakshow.