SubScribe Google+

Sunday, 1 May 2016

May front pages

Wednesday 25 May

front pages 25-05-16


Tuesday 24 May


front pages 24-05-16


Monday 23 May
front pages 23-05-16


Sunday 22 May


front pages 22-05-16


Saturday 21 May


front pages 21-05-16


Friday 20 May


front pages 20-05-16


Thursday 19 May


front pages 19-05-16


Wednesday 18 May
front page 18-05-16


Tuesday 17 May
front pages 17-05-16


Monday 16 May


front pages 16-05-16


Sunday 15 May
front pages 15-05-16



Saturday 14 May


front pages 14-05-16


Friday 13 May

Front pages 13-05-16Thursday 12 May
front pages 12-05-16


Wednesday 11 May

front pages 11-05-16


Tuesday 10 May

front pages 10-05-16

Monday 9 May
front pages 09-05-16


Sunday 8 May


front pages 08-05-16



Saturday 7 May


front pages 07-05-16


Friday 6 May


front pages 06-05-16


Thursday 5 May


front pages 05-05-16


Wednesday 4 May


front pages 03-05-16


Tuesday 3 May


front pages 03-05-16


Monday 2 May


front pages 02-05-16


Sunday 1 May


front pages 01-05-16



You can see the April front pages here and those for the rest of the year by following the archive links on the right or clicking on the "front pages" tab under the masthead.

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Hillsborough and why that Times blunder matters



The 96 Hillsborough victims

The Sun had no hope of getting it right. The Times got it spectacularly wrong. And then got it wrong again. And again.
There is now nothing anyone at London Bridge can do to heal the rift with Liverpool opened by that infamous Sun front page four days after the Hillsborough disaster 27 years ago.

With one bad decision, The Times has handcuffed itself to its pariah stablemate in a cell of opprobrium policed by the indignant righteous.
Rita Ora, a man shovelling snow, posh handbags, a couple of free theme park tickets, psychosomatic ailments: none of these was dispensable when it came to deciding where to put the Hillsborough inquest verdict.


Sun 27-04-16


What was the Sun to do? Give over the whole front page to the unlawful killing finding? If it had run a banner heading saying "We were wrong", it would have been thrown back in its face. If it had run a "Justice at last" head, it would have been accused of hypocrisy. If it had put any other element on the front alongside Hillsborough, it would have been accused of underplaying the story, of showing disrespect. So, knowing it was on a hiding to nothing, it took what it presumably saw as the least worst option and left it off altogether.
Which might have been a strategy of sorts had it a fantastic scoop to offer instead. A confected splash about the "scandal" of team Cameron's tactics to keep their "EU plot" secret  (excuse me, it's not a plot, it's government policy) doesn't cut it.
And Rita Ora? My guess from research for a forthcoming magazine article is that there are algorithms showing that Ms Ora's appearance on the front sells papers. But this wasn't the day to keep plugging this "did she-didn't she" nonsense about JayZ.
Bad decisions. To have any credibility as the country's best-selling paper, it should have gone all out on the inquest, apologised again for its past, then put on a tin helmet and waited for the flak.
times first edition 27-04-16

It was The Times, though, that really came a cropper.
How could my old paper make such a monumental error? 

First, let's try to understand what happened at The Times last night.
John Witherow is, by all accounts, a forceful editor who is not to be gainsaid. He was in the office yesterday, but left before the first edition went offstone to attend an awards function with Michael Heseltine and Peter Stothard's farewell on the 17th floor of the Baby Shard.

Also in the office yesterday was one newlywed media magnate.

That single fact and the absence of Hillsborough from either of his daily newspaper front pages would be more than enough for the anti-Rupert brigade. Let's all attack evil Murdoch and his lackey editors. For even if he didn't tell Witherow and Sun editor Tony Gallagher to bury the story, they might have been trying to please him. I can imagine him saying "**** 'em" as he riffled through the page proofs - but banishing the story from the Times front page? Unlikely.

One version of events is that Hillsborough was slated for a front-page slot throughout the day, but was inexplicably dropped by the executives left in charge when Witherow left. 
That's a little hard to credit for such a micro-managing editor. As one observer said: "John looks at the front in the middle of the Atlantic. He'd certainly monitor it from the 17th floor."
Another account says that one of those executives and the newsdesk argued consistently and in vain for the story, but that Witherow had ruled that he didn't want it on the front because it was "old news". Old news because it had been around since 11am or old news because the police cover-up had been rumbled years before? 
Whichever it was, Witherow - who hasn't responded to my inquiries on the matter - apparently gave the impression of truly believing that it was not worth the front. 

That was an extraordinary misjudgment for so experienced an editor and a most unfortunate call to get wrong. But every one of the dozen or so people who have contacted SubScribe about what happened last night was convinced that this was cock-up, not conspiracy (maybe the alternative was too awful to contemplate). 
As one said: "Everyone was outraged. Witherow was the only one thinking along those lines. It seems that there are too many sycophants at the top level around him."
Another said: "This is the inevitable outcome when an editor is too aggressive, too much of a bully. They can't be told anything and the backbench is too cowed to stand up to them."
A third respected Times writer rued the omission, but was of the opinion that broadsheet fronts didn't matter as much as tabloids and that "hopefully it will blow over". He pointed to "good coverage inside".

Hmm. The first mention of Hillsborough comes on page 12, behind mushroom scrumping in Epping Forest, a photograph of the actress Elizabeth Olsen and a new treetop walkway at Westonbirt.
That might supports the theory that a proper page one story was intended or further demonstrate Witherow's cavalier attitude to the subject. He dislikes football and reporter David Brown is said to have had a fight to be allowed to go to Warrington to cover the end of the inquest in person.

If you want to see good coverage, read David Conn in the Guardian.


times 2nd edition 27-04-16


So what made the paper change up? The Twitter storm that greeted publication of the first edition or protests from within? 
Henry Winter and Matt Dickinson are reported to have complained and Liverpool football correspondent Tony Barrett's "unbelievable" tweet is there for all to see. But a senior executive told me that the Guardian report of a sports desk mutiny was inaccurate and I believe him - not least because of his reluctance to say anything else.



Experience tells me that editors, having made a decision, are more likely to heed outsiders than staffers playing the same record, so I'm backing Twitter over Winter. But thank goodness for whatever it was that prompted the rethink.

This morning there were huddles in corners and distraught executives, but Witherow was reported to have told everyone to forget about it. Jessica Carsen, who looks after The Times's PR insisted that matters couldn't be left to fester. A statement was tweeted saying that a mistake had been made and been fixed.




That went down well.
"Fixed". What a choice of word!
A misspelt name can be fixed. An error of judgment can't. You can review what you've done and change your approach, but something that is fixed is put right. Who's to say that the change was adequate?

And then, rather than retreat quietly, The Times's social media team couldn't resist tweeting links to the good elements of the paper's Hillsborough coverage: the interactive biographies of the victims, Henry Winter's excellent essay. Was this part of the PR strategy? If so, it was flawed.

Carsen, who operates from the group managing editors' office under the title Director of Editorial Communications, tells SubScribe that this was the first time in her seven years with the company that such a statement had been issued and that the feedback, including from the staff, was that it was good that they had owned the mistake publicly.


Twitter didn't seem convinced and promptly emptied another hailstorm onto The Times, with the inevitable demands for contrition and apology. 


Twitter responds to Times statement

Everyone must say sorry publicly for every lapse, real or perceived, these days. It's nonsense, but you can't blame the Twitterati for chirruping along with that chorus, given the strident demands from various newspapers - though not generally The Times - for apologies from all and sundry.
Apologies are not required to clear the air, to allow all parties to shake hands and move on. They are required for humiliation; the offender must be seen to grovel.



The Sun, it may be remembered, grovelled in September 2012 - a quarter of a century late - when it was shown conclusively that it had swallowed a pack of lies from the police about the victims of the disaster. It ran a front-page heading saying "we are profoundly sorry for false reports" and inside it described its "The truth" front page as the blackest day in the paper's history.

It reproduced the offending front page and wrote:



It is to the eternal discredit of The Sun that we reported this misinformation [from the police] which tarnished the reputation of the Liverpool fans including the 96 victims.
Today we unreservedly apologise to the Hillsborough victims, their families, Liverpool supporters, the city of Liverpool and all our readers for this misjudgment.
The role of a newspaper is to uncover unjustice. To forensically examine the claims made by those who are in positions of power. In the aftermath of the Hillsborough tragedy we failed.
And by failing in our duty we heaped more misery on the families of those who lost their lives and the people of Liverpool. Nothing can excuse The Sun's page one presentation under the headline The Truth.
It was inaccurate, grossly insensitive and offensive. This version of events was NOT the truth...
A newspaper that prides itself on serving ordinary working people betrayed their trust 23 years ago.
The people of Liverpool may never forgive us for the injustice we did them.
All we can do is offer them an unreserved and heartfelt apology that is profound, sincere and unambiguous.
Much good did it do the paper or its staff, who were barred from yesterday's press conferences and subjected to further barrages of online abuse in retribution for the sins of others - sins committed when today's bunch were in nappies or at school. The reappearance of Kelvin McKenzie, the man who presided over that 1989 calumny, as a columnist has not helped any hopes of rehabilitation.

It is this background that makes the error of judgment at The Times the more serious.
Of all the things to get wrong.

Whether it was the editor himself or one of his two unfortunate lieutenants who blundered, an apology is in order. Not to the baying masses on social media (I confess that I both tweeted and posted on Facebook my horror at that first edition front), but to the staff.
To Tony Barrett, whose already difficult job covering Liverpool FC for the paper has been rendered almost impossible. Indeed, I believe he may have resigned.
To Andrew Norfolk, whose magnificent work exposing the failings of that same South Yorkshire police force not three decades but three years ago brought justice for the abused girls of Rotherham. (Talking of Norfolk, why wasn't he all over this story - or big gun Sean O'Neill or crime editor Fiona Hamilton?)
To all the reporters and subs and photographers who have been robbed of the pride they will have felt at seeing their paper improve and increase circulation while other titles lost their way.

How could such an apology be conveyed? In an email? In conference? At a meeting of all staff? Then what would happen? Someone would leak it to Private Eye - or the likes of me - and instead of being taken at face value, it would be ridiculed as The Sun's effort was four years ago.
We live in unhappy, churlish times. This was a bad mistake and there is no acceptable way to atone.

When I posted the first edition front page on Facebook, a friend asked "Does it matter? All papers have their own little oddities. The Telegraph and its advertisers, the Sun and Liverpool, the Mail and its hatred for anything that moves and breathes that isn't Paul Dacre..all of them and the BBC, most of them and the EU..."

front pages 13-09-12

Well, first of all it matters because Hillsborough matters.
Yesterday's events may, to some, appear to have added little to what we learnt from the independent panel whose report four years ago led to the Sun's belated mea culpa and the front pages above.

We knew then that police who are paid to protect us had killed some of us and then repaired to a drinking club to recover from the stress of the afternoon. There they cooked up lying smears of drunkenness and hooliganism to cover up their wrongdoing. As they were doing so, families of the victims were made to queue into the small hours outside a gymnasium for their turn to look at their loved ones in body bags. Not only that, senior officers went on to hoodwink politicians and journalists who were supposed to hold them to account. The details of this behaviour from members of the force that gave us the battle of Orgreave can't be repeated often enough.

But it didn't end there. Throughout this inquest, some persisted with their lies and deceit, putting the families through further anguish. Officers whose purpose in life is to uphold the law stood in a courtroom and lied on oath. But the jury saw through their lies and delivered verdicts that said: "You killed those people. Unlawfully."
It was a momentous judgment and vindication of the families' perseverance and common cause.

Second, it matters because that front page diminishes a great newspaper. It reinforces the impression that ordinary people in the North West don't matter to arrogant privileged media types in London, that the Establishment can still get away with anything.
It will be seen as further evidence that our Press is out of touch; that it has disintegrated to such an extent that it prefers to feed readers propaganda than to inform them.

Newspapers have always had their own agendas, but never before have editors been so blatant in shoving their opinions down people's throats - and in distorting or concealing inconvenient facts- as they do now.

Great journalism is still being done, but it's hidden on the foreign, oped and sports pages while the screaming fronts focus on Angelina Jolie and immigrants, turning off potential customers in their millions.

I don't want to see that happening to my industry and I especially don't want to see it happening at The Times. I don't believe it is happening there - or at least to anywhere near the same extent as elsewhere - but front pages like this morning's first edition tarnish its reputation.

times pages 66-67 27-04-16

It is a failing of people who have long since left the engine room to talk about how things were "in my day", but I can say with confidence that in previous eras, under the likes of Charlie Wilson, Peter Stothard, John Bryant and Ben Preston, a piece of writing with as much class and style as that produced by Henry Winter last night would not have been buried on page 66. They might have made it the splash. There would certainly, at the very least, have been a big display quote from the front to direct readers to his work. 
As a final example of why it all matters, I offer that here now:




The police froze, inhibiting the rescue operation. It was the Liverpool fans who were the heroes, leaning over from the tier above, pulling people to safety. It was Liverpool fans who were on the pitch, trying to resuscitate their friends. It was Liverpool fans who grabbed advertising hoardings to use as stretchers as the ambulance service reaction was insufficient. Yet it was the Liverpool fans whose reputation was besmirched by the police and The Sun, who wickedly alleged that supporters had misbehaved.
This strikes a particular chord with me because the Hillsborough image that I find most chilling does not involve penned fans begging for help or scrambling to safety, victims being given first aid or the anguished faces of relatives. It is of the string of police officers along the centre line, immobile in the face of carnage, still viewing the fans as hooligans, watching and doing nothing as people were dying before their very eyes.

Hillsborough 15-04-89

It all matters.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Taking a stand against Mail Online's plagiarism


Update: The Mail has paid Fletcher's invoice "with no admission of liability" and removed the plagiarised article from its website. Perhaps the people featured at the foot of this post might care to take up the cudgels?

war graves stories
Spot the difference: Fletcher's story, posted at 1am and  McLelland's 6am version



"Their name liveth for evermore," the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow.  The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should be forever England, yet patently is anything but.

So begins an exclusive article by Martin Fletcher for The Times about the desecration and neglect of war graves in Iraq. It was published on the newspaper's website at 1am yesterday.
Fletcher, a former Times staffer who is now freelance, went to Iraq under his own steam, paying his way, organising his own transport, finding his own contacts, taking all the risks inherent in visiting that part of the world.

By an extraordinary coincidence, the Mail seems to have been working on the same story. For five hours later a piece appeared on its website containing this as the second sentence:
Despite being etched with the immortal line: 'Their name liveth for evermore', the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.
It came from the pen of  Euan McLelland, who actually filed his copy at 4.02am, shortly after completing a story about the importance of teaching children phonics and as he prepared to report on outrage over plans to allow a police killer outings from jail.
Apart from writing for the Mail, McLelland has a personal website on which he describes himself as a "driven proactive and reliable multimedia reporter". At 28, he is proud of his journalistic record thus far and says his job requires him to "consistently deliver hard-hitting and breaking news stories as they happen to a global audience".
It certainly keeps him busy. His night shift on Sunday also involved writing about garlic that doesn't give you bad breath, an interview with Lee Rigby's mother, insight on SAS plans to attack ISIS and an update on the junior doctors' dispute.

Edgar Cookson VC
Edgar Cookson VC

With such a workload, it is impressive that McLelland managed to research the background to one of the war heroes buried in the neglected cemetery - Lieutenant-Commander Edgar Cookson, above, who was awarded the VC after being killed, aged 31, while trying to clear  a river blockage in September 1915. 

Unfortunately, McLelland rendered Cookson's first name as Edward and got his age wrong, but mistakes do creep in when you're working under pressure.

The rest of his story bore a striking resemblance to that published on The Times website. 
Here's Fletcher: 
More than 4,600 soldiers killed in Iraq during the First World War, three of them winners of the Victoria Cross, are buried in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in the southern city of Amara, but you would never know it. A century after they died for their country, their resting place is an unsightly expanse of mud, weeds and uncut grass the size of four or five football pitches.
And here's McLelland:
The war graves of almost 3,000 British troops killed in Iraq during the First World War have been left in such a state of disrepair that the entire site has been transformed into football pitches...
Fletcher again:
The smashed remains of the traditional Cross of Sacrifice are piled in the middle. Plaques naming the dead have fallen off the commemorative wall.The headstones were mostly removed in the 1930s because they were crumbling in the saline soil, but the gravemarkers, gatehouse, date palms and many of the perimeter railings have all disappeared. 
And McLelland:
Most of the headstones were removed in the 1930s after they crumbled in the heat, leaving behind plaques, gravemarkers and several stone memorials.However, they too have now gone - leaving the cemetery a weed-peppered mud heap.
Fletcher:
Still, this cemetery has fared better than the adjacent graveyard for 5,000 Indian soldiers who died beside their British counterparts. That has been commandeered by the Maysan Funfair with its merry-go-rounds and giant ferris wheel, and by the construction company that built it.
McLelland:
An neighbouring graveyard for Indian soldiers who died alongside the British has fared worse.With almost all of its memorials now gone, a funfair now operates on the formerly serene plot. 
Fletcher also notes that another cemetery in Basra was not only the size of four or five football pitches - but was actually being used as such:
It has also fared better than the British and Indian war cemeteries in Basra, 100 miles further south. The former really has become four of five football pitches, replete with goalposts. Hordes of boys now play on the graves of 2,906 British soldiers, including one VC winner.
McLelland must have lost his bearings whizzing about Iraq between his other assignments on Sunday night, because he writes this of Amara:
Worst of all, goalposts now mark as many as five football pitches on the once sacred ground, meaning scores of locals are now enjoying a kickabout on the final resting places of thousands of British war heroes.
Silly me! Of course he wasn't there at all. For he acknowledges his source when quoting a woman mentioned in Fletcher's report:
Barbara Heyburn, from Ashford, Kent, lamented the state of the cemetery - in which her grandfather is buried. She told The Times: 'Those soldiers didn't choose to go to war. They were told to.'They ended up losing their lives and nobody remembers them.'
Notice the hyperlink to The Times. That's there in the text. As is another at the foot of the piece:
Read more:
None of this will surprise seasoned Mail Online watchers, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Fletcher was so irritated to see his copy not only plagiarised but mangled and rendered inaccurate under someone else's name that he sent an invoice to Mail Online publisher Martin Clarke with this covering letter:

Dear Mr Clarke,
Please find attached an invoice for the article that appeared on Mail online today (April 25) entitled:
Thousands of war graves in Iraq marking soldiers killed in the First World War become site for football pitches and a fairground after being left to crumble
Although this appeared under the by-line of someone called Euan McClelland you will see that it is based almost entirely on an article by me that appeared in The Times the same morning - same story, same quotes, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/britains-war-graves-left-dusty-…I hardly think the perfunctory nod to The Times deep in the story justifies your plagiarism. In any other profession this would be called theft - theft of my story, of the research I financed, of all the time and energy I put into my journey to and around Iraq.

When Clarke had not responded after 24 hours, Fletcher sent a further letter to McLelland this morning:

Good morning, Euan.
I'd like to know whether you are intending to pay me for the use/theft of my exclusive story on British cemeteries in Iraq by Mail online yesterday?
I am a freelance journalist. I paid my way to Iraq. I did the research. I put in the time and energy. I took the risks of visiting that unstable country. How dare you steal my work and pass it off as your own? How can you possibly describe yourself on your website as a "driven, proactive and reliable young media reporter". Are you completely without shame or pride?
I sent an invoice to your publisher, Martin Clarke, yesterday, but he has not had the decency to reply (why am I surprised?). So I am sending it again - this time to you.
I look forward to your reply,
Martin

Will his letters bear fruit? Others have shamed the Mail into paying up, but nothing seems to change. Clarke, overseeing the world's most successful website, appears bombproof.
The Australian sued for plagiarism two years ago and ended up reaching an undisclosed settlement with Clarke.
This time last year Jim King wrote a piece for Gawker entitled "My year of ripping off the web with Mail Online" describing his experiences working under Clarke in America. SubScribe readers responded to that with their own tales of life under the Clarke regime in New York. All water off a duck's back.

Examples of the Mail's kleptomania abound:

In August 2014 when Isis drove the Yazidis up Mount Sinjar, the only journalist with them on the mountain was Jonathan Krohn, who was filing for the Sunday Telegraph. His copy went up in full on that paper's website and was then subsumed into a wider story for the print splash. It also appeared in the next day's Daily Mail, complete with picture byline.  Krohn told SubScribe at the time that he hadn't authorised the Mail to use his work - although they had tried to contact him by text and email when he was out of signal.
He fired off a legal letter and the Mail settled out of court. So he is living proof that the organisation knows that it can't steal copy with impunity. How many journalists who have had their work ripped off realise that?

Fletcher's Facebook post on his tussle over the war graves brought a clutch of sympathy tales from other correspondents - and some stirrings that might just lead to a legal challenge in this country.
One photographer offered the name of an intellectual property lawyer and Leo Lewis suggested one possible avenue:
The UK introduced something akin to the US style class action suit last october, intended mainly, from my shallow understanding, to allow for large consumer groups to pursue price fixing claims etc. An ambitious lawyer could easily see all the foreign corrs that have been ripped off by this despicable practice (it happened regularly to me and other colleagues when I was in China) as a single class of plaintiffs. There really is so much about IP theft that goes unpunished and unremarked upon, or worse, simply viewed as an inevitable feature of the new normal.
Simon de Bruxelles had another thought:


The fact your Times article is behind the Paywall means it was not in general circulation on the internet. I assume you could have sold it or versions of it to several different publications at their usual rates and that having it available to everyone on the MailOnline could mean they are no longer interested or would pay significantly less.
I would take this to the small claims court. Bill the Mail the maximum you could have anticipated in terms of syndication and secondary deals with photographs and/or video. I would also claim your expenses as though you had gone there to do the story for the Mail. I assume this could amount to quite a tidy sum of money. 
 It would then be up to the Mail Online to defend your claim and argue why they thought it was okay to appropriate someone else's work from behind a subscription site and place it in the public domain, thereby depriving them of the product of their labour.
Others cheered from the sidelines:
This kind of theft would not be tolerated or allowed in any other industry. And the tragedy is that it all goes back to giving away copy online for free. by devaluing their own work to zero newspapers have signaled that it can be taken for nothing. Onion farmers don't give away their onions to create a market for onions. 
Well done Martin. They do this stuff frequently. It's not called the Daily Fail for nothing and I would keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response 
Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft? It seems mean to pummel the hapless McLelland, who is probably being paid fourpence three-farthings to churn other people's copy while most of the world is fast asleep, but let's start with his output for yesterday morning, which included a couple of exclusives, a serialisation that would have cost the Mirror money and and Oped piece that Michael Gove was probably happy to see disseminated outside the Times paywall:

Euan McLelland's workload

British special forces troops set to launch double attack on ISIS in Iraq and Libya within weeks after teaming up with French and US counterparts
A well-placed military source told The Mirror: 'Our people have been at the forefront in dismantling IS across northern Iraq and Syria and are already preparing the ground for the battle to recapture Mosul.'
Read more:
Original author: Chris Hughes






 Fury after killer given five life sentences after stabbing policeman to death during triple murder spree is allowed supervised outings from prison
Sgt King's widow Monica told The Sun: 'It's disgusting.'The 65-year-old added that her husband's killer was 'pure evil'. 
Read more:
Original author: Mike Sullivan







Teaching children to read using phonics has 'significant benefits' in helping those from disadvantaged backgrounds or who have English as a second language
A DfE spokesperson told The Guardian: 'Our latest phonics screening check on six-year-olds showed that 120,000 more children are on track to become excellent readers than in 2012, when the check was introduced – showing the impact this method can have.'
Read more:
Original author: Sally Wheale 





The garlic that doesn't cause bad breath: Duo prepare for first harvest of giant 'kissing' variety that has a milder flavour and is odourless after spending three years developing it
Speaking to The Guardian, Guagni said: 'We thought this was a typical example of Italian excellence that has been forgotten. The taste is very good and very light so we thought about the possibility of reintroducing it to the market.' 
Read more:
Original author:  Stephanie Kirchgaessner






'I hate these men so much it burns my soul': Lee Rigby's mother tells explains how she faced her son's killers in court and why an incident at their sentencing left her ill 
In an extract from her book Lee Rigby: A Mother's Story, serialised in The Mirror, Mrs Rigby also described how she thought she was having a heart attack when the two 'evil b*******' erupted in court after being told by a judge their views were 'a betrayal of Islam'.
Read more:
Original author: Rachael Bletchly






Gove warns of migration 'free-for-all' if Britain votes to stay in the EU because expansion will hand millions from five nations including Turkey the right to move freely to the UK
In an article for The Times, Mr Gove insisted potential new members of the EU such as Turkey and Albania pose a 'direct and serious threat' to public services like the NHS, and social harmony
Read more:
Original authors: Michael Gove and Francis Elliott

Maybe these journalists might care to join the Fletcher campaign?
Oh yes, and in the way of old-fashioned (old-far) journalism, SubScribe emailed and tweeted Mr McLelland to ask if he'd care to comment. He has yet to respond. If he does, his words will appear here - or, if they're interesting enough, at the top of the post.