Bacon Muslim Story
31 March 2011, 05:00 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacon Muslim Story
Remember that stupid story about the shop being forced not to cook bacon because some Muslims complained.
What a load of old tosh from the Daily Fail.
The reality as reported this week is that the shop owners installed a new extractor system without planning permission. They were caught by the local council who forced them to retrospectively apply for the planning permission. It is true that a Muslim family above/next the cafe said that the extractor made their house stink.
But the actual story is a planning permission story and in reality has f**k all to do with Muslims and bacon.
BTW the planning permission has been granted and they are happily cooking the bacon and eggs as they always have done.
What a load of old tosh from the Daily Fail.
The reality as reported this week is that the shop owners installed a new extractor system without planning permission. They were caught by the local council who forced them to retrospectively apply for the planning permission. It is true that a Muslim family above/next the cafe said that the extractor made their house stink.
But the actual story is a planning permission story and in reality has f**k all to do with Muslims and bacon.
BTW the planning permission has been granted and they are happily cooking the bacon and eggs as they always have done.
31 March 2011, 05:17 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
old news Trout
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
Trending Topics
31 March 2011, 05:44 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
31 March 2011, 06:13 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
31 March 2011, 07:19 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite what Trouts say the PCC decided to reject complains about the article.
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/20...con-smell.html
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/20...con-smell.html
31 March 2011, 08:16 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Despite what Trouts say the PCC decided to reject complains about the article.
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/20...con-smell.html
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/20...con-smell.html
one of the members is Peter Wright who is the editor of The Mail on Sunday, but you knew that
and what % of complaints are upheld etc
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 31 March 2011 at 08:22 PM.
31 March 2011, 08:31 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you focus on the argument instead of the person?
31 March 2011, 09:03 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
31 March 2011, 09:16 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 March 2011, 09:32 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
can you tell us who is on the board of the PCC -- so we can check the impartiality etc
one of the members is Peter Wright who is the editor of The Mail on Sunday, but you knew that
and what % of complaints are upheld etc
one of the members is Peter Wright who is the editor of The Mail on Sunday, but you knew that
and what % of complaints are upheld etc
31 March 2011, 09:35 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No do your own research and I already replied to this post above.
31 March 2011, 10:12 PM
#18
Well the 'arguement' was bollocks imo. 
There was no way the original articles were written without some intent to stir up intolerance. Even if references were made re. the planning issue, it was included as almost a side issue, not the main problem.
Obviously this is just my take on it, but tbh, recalling how the thread went on here about the article when it came out, it got the reaction I would imagine the reporters hoped for. If it wasn't misleading, there are alot of stupid people on here as well as within the wider society.
There was no way the original articles were written without some intent to stir up intolerance. Even if references were made re. the planning issue, it was included as almost a side issue, not the main problem.
Obviously this is just my take on it, but tbh, recalling how the thread went on here about the article when it came out, it got the reaction I would imagine the reporters hoped for. If it wasn't misleading, there are alot of stupid people on here as well as within the wider society.
31 March 2011, 10:35 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old news Trout
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
The cafe is now up and running!
31 March 2011, 10:39 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the full PCC ruling :
The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.
While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.
The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.
However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.
While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.
Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.
The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.
However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.
While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.
Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
31 March 2011, 10:45 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 March 2011, 11:22 PM
#22
Here's the full PCC ruling :
The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.
While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.
The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.
However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.
While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.
Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.
The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.
However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.
While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.
Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Yes, the information may have been there and the story was factual, but the problem was how it was presented.
The focus was on the Muslim element, and the thread on here, as I said earlier, is proof to me that journalists got the reaction they hoped for, regardless of how the PCC want to dress it up.
If that wasn't the intention, then the story could've been reported without mentioning Muslims, as afterall, it was a story about some people being sick of the smell of food/bacon due to the extractor fan, and it being found that planning permission wasn't granted.
Doubt that would've made the news though.
01 April 2011, 08:52 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on, you are not stupid....
Yes, the information may have been there and the story was factual, but the problem was how it was presented.
The focus was on the Muslim element, and the thread on here, as I said earlier, is proof to me that journalists got the reaction they hoped for, regardless of how the PCC want to dress it up.
If that wasn't the intention, then the story could've been reported without mentioning Muslims, as afterall, it was a story about some people being sick of the smell of food/bacon due to the extractor fan, and it being found that planning permission wasn't granted.
Doubt that would've made the news though.
Yes, the information may have been there and the story was factual, but the problem was how it was presented.
The focus was on the Muslim element, and the thread on here, as I said earlier, is proof to me that journalists got the reaction they hoped for, regardless of how the PCC want to dress it up.
If that wasn't the intention, then the story could've been reported without mentioning Muslims, as afterall, it was a story about some people being sick of the smell of food/bacon due to the extractor fan, and it being found that planning permission wasn't granted.
Doubt that would've made the news though.
As with any story the focus tend to be on what is relevant or of interest. In the current political climate of Islamic terrorism and the Islamification going on in the UK it is unsurprising such a stance was taken.
01 April 2011, 09:53 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading between the lines, the Mail was almost right with the story.
What I think happened is that someone built this extractor fan to comply with one law having been a business there for quite some time and suddenly finding that what they've been doing for years is now against health and safety or some other clipboard holding related job.
Man in flat is constantly bombarded with smells - he probably was anyway but hey, its a cheap flat and he knew it was there, much like those who buy a house near Heathrow and then complain about the noise.
He decides to try the muslim card to get the planning permission rejected. He isn't a muslim but he sees an opportunity to get the place shut so he makes a complaint which the Mail reports.
Happily, his stupid complaint is thrown out. Unfortunately, the council did exactly what he thought they would by namby pambying up to a racist complaint and have now wasted a fortune on something that really should have been decided in 30 seconds by someone with a bit of common sense.
5t.
What I think happened is that someone built this extractor fan to comply with one law having been a business there for quite some time and suddenly finding that what they've been doing for years is now against health and safety or some other clipboard holding related job.
Man in flat is constantly bombarded with smells - he probably was anyway but hey, its a cheap flat and he knew it was there, much like those who buy a house near Heathrow and then complain about the noise.
He decides to try the muslim card to get the planning permission rejected. He isn't a muslim but he sees an opportunity to get the place shut so he makes a complaint which the Mail reports.
Happily, his stupid complaint is thrown out. Unfortunately, the council did exactly what he thought they would by namby pambying up to a racist complaint and have now wasted a fortune on something that really should have been decided in 30 seconds by someone with a bit of common sense.
5t.
01 April 2011, 10:10 AM
#27
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take every snoozepaper story with a pinch of salt tbh. I'm also fed up though with "minorities" complaining that papers etc are hostile towards them (listen to the sound clip posted above) ... get a grip FFS, they always big things up to sell the paper & they'll eventually get around to having a pop at everyone!
TX.
TX.
01 April 2011, 10:14 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
01 April 2011, 10:27 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old news Trout
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
Radio 4 did a story on how the press wilfully mirepresent Muslim stories
this was also included
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw21x
As for reposting this story.... did we really need to discuss it again???
