Misleading Headline?

[sp1814]

Is the Mail on Sunday trying to stir up hatred against gay people (again)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714321/NHS-fund-sperm-bank-lesbians-New-generation-fatherless-families-paid-YOU.html

[lindapalmara]

Tora Tora Tora. Thank you for your kind words. However, I'm not sure I can cope with such bigotry. I understand just where these people come from, I've met a lot in my life (and I have had a very varied and interesting life). I don't mind constructive discussion. I can see there are reasonable replies on this post, so maybe I will have a look again!

[naomi24]

//The NGDT hopes the sperm bank will be self-funding after a year." //

So it isn't at the moment - but let's hope they're right.

[sp1814]

I don't mind if it isn't self-financing to be honest.

The people using the service pay their taxes, and the NHS spend millions each year on entirely preventable diseases linked to 'lifestyles'. I am more than happy for people to be treated for smoking-related disease or illnesses caused by obesity. I wouldn't expect those treatments to be self-financed because these patients have paid through tax contributions.

[sp1814]

naomi24

The crux of my argument is this headline:

http://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/front-pages.cfm

I just think it's stirring.

[EDDIE51]

Yes it is misleading but what else do you expect from the Daily Wail ?
The Wail always has to slip in an anti Gay, anti immigrant, anti benefit claimant or what ever is on their current 'hate list' slant to every story.
With this one they have managed to get an anti gay and anti benefit claim slant by mentioning 'tax payer funded' and ' gay' in one sentence.

[New Judge]

The only misleading aspect of the headline is that the scheme is being funded by the NHS. Strictly speaking the NHS has no money. It only has what is allocated to it from the sums extracted from taxpayers. So it is taxpayers who are funding this scheme.

Other than that there is nothing misleading about the banner. The new scheme is known as a sperm bank and there does not seem to be any dispute that the it will be used by lesbians. The headline does not say it will be "exclusively" for lesbians and since estimates indicate that around 25% of its "customers" will be lesbians I see nothing misleading about it at all.

Just for the record and so as there is no misunderstanding I do not believe such a scheme should be funded by the taxpayer for anybody, gay, straight, sick, poor, rich, black, white, or anybody else. This is because I believe the world in general and the UK in particular needs to consider means of reducing its population and should not indulge itself in schemes designed to create children. There are more than enough of them around without trying.

[anotheoldgit]

Good point Judge.

[lindapalmara]

Thoroughly agree with NJ

[jno]

if Osborne cut tax rates the Mail would, by the same token, doubtless headline it "Tax cuts for lesbians".

[THECORBYLOON]

NEW JUDGE, by that reasoning, a headline saying " We pay so that Muslims aged 75+ get free TV licences" is not misleading but many folk reading it would think it was ONLY for Muslims.

[EDDIE51]

I was asked to be a ' personal sperm doner' once but that was a long time ago , I may put story on here one day.

[Sqad]

I am no expert on this "gay thing"....BUT:

I would have thought that Lesbians wouldn't want their progeny by heterosexual sperms as the progeny may turn out to be heterosexual.

Would n't it be better if there was a "GAY ONLY " sperm bank, contributed by gay men for the sole use of gay women and in that way the progeny may have a greater chance of being gay.

OR.....have i got it wrong.

[jno]

in the same way, Sqad, heterosexuals should be wary of creating babies with heterosexual sperm as they sometimes turn out gay as well.

It doesn't seem to stop them, however.

[naomi24]

sp, for the record, I think it's stirring too.

[sp1814]

Yes Sqad...but then I know you couldn't possibly believe that straight babies come from star...

You know what? We both know I don't need to finish that, right?

[Sqad]

sp...LOL.....never thought of that.

My suggestion really was brought about by my thoughts of the Jews in Leeds in the 50,s -80's.

Because of Anti-Semitism, they were not allowed into golf clubs.....so....they built their own ...for Jews only.

Get my point?

[sp1814]

New Judge - if only a quarter of those using this new sperm bank, why are they identified in the headline as if they are the ONLY users of the sperm bank?

To quote THECORBYLOON, this headline is thoroughly misleading:

FREE NHS SPECS FOR MUSLIM KIDS

The fact that any family on income support can get free specs, regardless of religious background might be explained later in the story, as it has here - but the headline is entirely misleading. Can you see that?

[anotheoldgit]

Sqad

/// Would n't it be better if there was a "GAY ONLY " sperm bank, contributed by gay men for the sole use of gay women and in that way the progeny may have a greater chance of being gay. ///

Not far off with your tongue in the cheek reasoning Sqad, this from the Guardian report on the subject.

/// For the first time, those from ethnic minority backgrounds will be able to choose from a range of culturally matched donors. ///

Sperm Bank???? Almost a Sperm Supermarket, "where is the blonde blue eyed aisle please"? Or "do you do mixed race varieties"? or "have you any from the rich and highly educated, I am willing to pay extra"?

[Sqad]

AOG....well there you go....what sqad utters today, the Guardian prints tomorrow....or in this case the other way round.

[sp1814]

Sqad

Typo in your post.

You left off the letters 's' and 'p' and 'l' from the word 'utters'.