How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. The facts.
TruePublica Editor: From the fearless Tom Pride at Pride’s Purge comes the following story regarding the little girl who was allegedly forced to live with Muslim foster parents. As a reminder this is The Times Headline:
This story is little more than a gross fabrication of the truth – in other words ‘Fake News’. The Times reported in its first paragraph – “A white Christian child was taken from her family and forced to live with a niqab-wearing foster carer in a home where she was allegedly encouraged to learn Arabic.”
In less than thirty words, The Times (and others in the press such as the Dail Mail, et al) has outright lied several times, with what can only be described as some sort of racist motivated rant aimed at reinforcing the meanest prejudices of its right-wing readers. Just one day earlier the Times printed a story “We cannot stamp out fake news without tackling social problems.” In its very first sentence the Times determines that “the term “fake news” has become such a common expression in political language that some people question whether it’s real.” It is exactly because of the corrosive political ideologies espoused by the mainstream media with fake news articles such as this, on behalf of the political bigots who are dividing our society, that racial discrimination and racist attacks have increased so much since the EU referendum was proposed by a Tory party who seem to have completely lost their way in recent years.
Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports - Essential Weekend Reading - Safe Subscribe
Pride’s Purge: The tabloid press (I include the Times in that description) lied about the story of the little girl put into care with a Muslim family.
Here are 10 of their worst lies – along with the real facts of the case as we know them:
1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who put the child into foster care:
2) According to court documents, the foster family criticised by the tabloids was a temporary placement.
3) According to court documents, the child is from Muslim heritage and was only put into temporary foster care until her Muslim grandmother is cleared by the courts to look after her.
4) The temporary foster mother did not wear a veil as stated by the tabloids. She wears a hijab:
The veil in the photographs published by the Mail and other comics was photoshopped onto a stock picture of a Muslim family taking a walk in a park in Dubai:
The Daily Mail have since ‘un-photoshopped’ the image with mounting online criticism.
5) According to court documents, the child’s mother has not at any time requested the foster parents be changed:
6) Tower Hamlets council have confirmed that the temporary foster parents do speak English. According to court documents, the Family Court dealing with the case has also expressed no concerns about the foster parents’ level of English. The press simply lied about that:
7) According to council foster care officials, the temporary foster parents did not ban Easter as stated by the tabloids. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied about that.
8) There is no evidence, apart from claims to the tabloid press, that the temporary foster parents have banned crucifixes and bacon from the home. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied.
9) According to court documents, it seems the child was put into temporary foster care by the police because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs problems. There was no mention of this fact by the tabloid press, presumably as it would put a question mark over the mother’s credibility and her criticism of the temporary foster parents.
10) The foster parents have been rated very highly by independent assessors, including the child’s own independent Children’s Guardian whose job is to advocate solely for the welfare of the child:
Those are the sad facts of the case. It is beyond disgusting that supposedly professional journalists would manipulate a tragic case involving a little child to further the political ends of their proprietors.
The following so-called journalists are either so incompetent they got the facts wrong, or they lied. Either way, they should be sacked:
Andrew Norfolk – The Times
Fiona Parker – Mail Online
Martin Robinson – Mail Online
Jonathan Reilly – The Sun
Cyril Dixon – The Express