Why I hate the Mail

There are many things I love about my adopted city, such as the ability easily to attend the theatre, concerts and interesting pubs. I also love the ready availability of public transport and taxis. I am glad that tonight, for example, I can have dinner with some girl friends and not worry (unlike in Perth) that I will be unable to get home safely. I know that in London the buses will still be running, no matter how late I finish up. And, at worst, there are always plenty of taxis. It's not like Perth, where I may find myself standing on a windy street waiting for hours for the taxi I pre-booked to finally arrive. Generally, I love London.

Perhaps because I do love London, it makes me even angrier than it ought when London shows its ugly side. And, unfortunately, like every city it does have its ugly side. Often that ugly side is conveyed by the headlines on the front page of the Daily Mail.

I am proud to say I have never read the Mail. However, when travelling on the tube or bus, I am still assaulted by its headlines, which I assume give a general gist of the content of the publication. This morning, for instance, when travelling on the tube, I was confronted with the headline of a Mail held in another commuter's hand, reading in part "Baroness Shameless". Presumably the article was about the recent controversy to engulf the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland (controversy largely created by the Mail). In case you are not from England, and so have not seen the recent headlines, Baroness Scotland accidentally employed an illegal immigrant for six months as a housekeeper. She didn't keep a copy of the worker's identity documents, as required under a law that Baroness Scotland (rather unfortunately) had helped formulate when in the Home Office. As a result, she was fined £5,000 (a civil penalty). Baroness Scotland apologised, unreservedly. However, she then made the further mistake of trying to clear the myth that she had been convicted of a crime, by explaining the fine was a civil penalty, analogous to a fine for a failure to pay the congestion charge.

Admittedly, the mistake of failing to comply with the legislation was foolish. Baroness Scotland's attempt to then clear the confusion as to whether she had been convicted of a crime was also ill-advised. Nonetheless, both errors are arguably understandable. Particularly when Baroness Scotland is someone who is juggling a busy job with the pressures of family life. While I consider that law officers and government ministers should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, I do not think they should be held to an impossibly high standard. And the backlash Baroness Scotland has had to face is over the top. Worst of all, some of the backlash is clearly racist and sexist. For example, the comments of the Timesonline reader who, in response to an article on the topic, wrote that Baroness Scotland should be fired because it was clear that she (as a black female) was only ever given the position of Attorney General due to positive discrimination!

I should be upfront about my own bias here and admit that I am a fan of Baroness Scotland. She's a hard working, dedicated law officer and, on top of that, is arguably the only person in the Labor government qualified and suited to the role of the Attorney General.

The headline about Baroness Scotland was not the only irritating headline the Daily Mail offered this morning. Below that headline appeared another: "why I hate feminism". I can only guess at the content of that article. Particularly knowing, as I do, that the Daily Mail insists that any woman photographed in the paper in relation to a story wear a skirt. If she happens to be wearing trousers, she will be asked to change into a skirt.

The worst part of all of this is that the Daily Mail is one of the most popular "newspapers" in England. And, guess who reads it? Primarily women.

Sometimes, I really do despair.