http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live...

This is what the story is referring to probably, so on one level it's true that Greenpeace are speaking out against this, but clearly not for any of the reasons that are given here.

Clearly what Greenpeace is doing and saying is fair enough. From quicjly reading this document, it appears that Greenpeace are saying that the UK, the EU and African countries themselves believe that financial aid is the best method for helping to deal with issues in Africa, but USAID is throwing its weight around, and it seems that their position with GM food as aid is more to benefit US farmers and other interests than African nations.

Again, it's a case of taking something that is not at all politically incorrect, simplifying it, sensationalizing it and then before long it becomes fact.

@MAtt (second comment)

Similarly that Football shirt story - This never happened. One police force (out of thousands) in South London sent round a letter to pubs giving them advice on how to stop hooliganism during the world cup, and suggested a dress code, including no football colours. At no point did they ban football shirts, it was a stupid story, in the Sun, taking events massively out of context and twisting them to sell papers. A few months later and it's become 'fact'. Never mind that it never really happened. Here is a quote from the police inspector: Insp Howard Lewis-Jones, of West Midlands Police, said there had been no directive stating that pubs should not bear flags. He said: “It is nonsense. Police officers are football fans too and patriotism should be an important part of enjoying the tournament in a fun and friendly atmosphere as long as people are sensible.”

@Matt (second comment)
90% of supposed 'political correctness gone mad' cases (certainly in the UK) are complete nonsense though. Our press loves to get hold of any story it can, twist it and use it to sell papers. Most of them are not true or taken wildly out of context, and then it goes through a Chinese whispers stage, and something that never happened becomes 'fact.' A quick Google search shows that you are describing an event in a minor town in England where organisers of a small event they called a 'Winter Festival' deciced they did not want a school to sing some of the carols they wanted to sing because it was supposed to be an upbeat event, and the carol they chose were too religious. They weren't banning carols or Christmas at all, they just wanted some of the classic carols and for it to be upbeat. There appear to have been other groups there singing Christmas carols. The people complained, the newspapers get hold of it, it's taken massively out of context and sensationalised to sell papers, and then two years later it's turned into councils banning Christmas.

That is such a nonsense statement.

The sole reason for me being an atheist is people believing in God. I never asked to be an atheist, if it wasn’t for people believing in God then there would be no need for a label for my lack of belief. It wouldn't be something I ever thought about, spoke about or let control or interfere with my life in any way whatsoever. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Funny that people mention rap tracks here in the comments, such as U can’t touch this (although I did once hear a girl claim that someone had stolen MC Hammer’s song upon her hearing SuperFreak in a club!). The vast majority of rap tracks sample existing material and for the vast majority of releases there will be royalties paid on these samples – hence sample clearance. It’s not ripping off old tracks in the same way as the ones given in this top ten here where they are putting it out there as their own composition without giving credit or royalties. From the outset these artists are paying royalties and using existing music in a new way to create a new sound. There are literally thousands of 60s and 70s funk and soul records which have been sampled by hip hop producers – they aren’t thieves! It’s all part of the process.

Well this clearly doesn't make sense - How did France lose all three games if they drew 0 - 0 with Uruguay? They lost two and drew one, no?

"France were then held to a goalless draw by Uruguay in game two. Zidane, the heartbeat of the French side, was rushed back from injury to play in the third match against Denmark, but was not fully fit and was ultimately unable to prevent a 0-2 loss. France were eliminated in the group stages, losing all three matches and not even scoring a single goal"