Interesting competing views.
Melissa who is extremely right wing, US style. Emily, who is left wing although not radically so. Watcher, who is rather balanced and Kopmatt who appears to be left wing in the style of British labour. If I have the characterisations wrong feel free to correct me.
The Daily Mail wouldn't be a Murdoch paper would it? We have two major papers in Sydney, the Telegraph and the Herald. The Herald is left wing but only just. The Telegraph just wants to sell papers and so can be zealotically right wing one day and ultra left wing the next. What the Telegraph is good at is getting their stories not exactly the way a normal person would have interpreted the events. They are currently making a very big deal out of 'P' plate drivers (young people that have provisional or new licences) being the major category of people that die. Well, duh. That statistic has not changed since 1945. They wrote a very big story about a successful business man calling him a "love rat" because it was alleged he got his mistress pregnant. That is something that Australian's just don't care about. Turns out that he was separated from his wife and had been for a pretty long time. It was a story that might have been embarrassing to the people it mentioned but made no sense. They recently devoted two full pages including the whole of the front page, colour photos and all to our Police Commissioner having a car accident. He stopped at a stop sign and then missed seeing a car and turned into its path slightly injuring his wife and the other passenger. they then linked it to the Commissioner's campaign to have young people drive slower, as if the two stories are even remotely related.
So if the Daily Mail rights stories that sell papers rather than supports any particular ideology, the original comment by Melissa remains valid, assuming the story was not just lies. The British really have problems with political correctness taken too far, especially by councils that have much greater control than in most other political systems in the world. Some real ratbags can end up running UK councils making appalling politically correct decisions.
It could very well be that the story was written because it plays on the typical British opinion that political correctness has gone way too far and that they really do have very radical mosques in Britain where the spokesman will spout the most atrocious racist material and be protected because of the protection of religion.
I agree with Poppet on this one. Ban religions outright. The trouble with the Islamic religion is the Koran really does have passages that say a true Muslim cannot be a friend of a Jew or a Christian. It has passages that are worse than that. The Bible has passages that say it is OK to offer your daughters to be raped so that your sons do not indulge in homosexuality, it is OK to stone willful children to death, etc, etc. Thankfully most modern societies pay lip service to religions but do not allow them to dictate their laws. But out of all the major religions Islam has the problem that is not meant to just be a religion but a way of living and that includes making laws. Sharia law based countries such as Iran follow the Koran as well as tradition both before and after the writing of the Koran to subjugate women and allow the killing of women for adultery and any other section of the Koran that the religious zealots feel like imposing on their country. The bible says you can do this too, but it has not been part of law in Christian countries fora very long time aside from some loony parts of the US where adultery carried long jail sentences. It is still On the he books in two states although the 1984 ruling of the Supreme Court probably makes the law illegal.
For political correctness by the way you don't have to look at the UK. How about the US where a simple comment by Miss California that she didn't support gay marriages got her sacked as Miss California. So the First Amendment guarantees free speech unless you don't like what is said. I support gay marriages but don't see what her view on it, and she was asked the question, she did not volunteer the opinion, has to do with being a beauty queen.
Political correctness is just as much censorship as overt racism. But the trouble is very much that the enemies of the way of life in France, UK, the US etc, use it against those that oppose their subjugation of society. It is not a good thing for a democratic society to accept immigrants that do not believe in democracy or worse believe in the overturning of democracy. I do not care why they believe that, whether it be religion or any other reason. It is destabilising to the country. If the immigrant population reaches a critical mass then you end up with very serious problems. The Daily mil might right garbage but in order to do that it must be successful and thus the stories must strike a nerve.
And Melissa Fox News gets treated the way it does in America because it is how it is, not because it is right wing. It is designed to attract viewers and doesn't greatly care how it does that as best as I can see. It sensationalises news items that shouldn't even be news worthy and ignores other news that does not support its pet peeves of the day.