Whoops! No it hasn't. Silly me. After telling readers once in the headline and once again in the opening sentence that white people have been barred from applying for a job, the paper surreptitiously withdraws its statement with:
Bristol City has created the management training posts for graduates in an effort to recruit more minority employees.You might have missed the withdrawal there. See where it says 'management training posts'? A training post is not a job. It's training. Once these people finish their training, they have to apply for the job on the open market.
In the 1976 Act, exceptions are made for training. If a particular group is under-represented in a particular area - and this includes white people - an employer can offer training to people from those groups to try to redress the balance.
The Mail does know this, because it explains in the very final sentence that "The Race Relations Act 1976 states that if a racial group is under-represented councils can offer training to individuals from that group." And yet despite knowing that it is talking about avdertising a training programme and not a job, which would be illegal, the paper still tells its readers that white people cannot apply for jobs.
Isn't that lying?
This is part of what's so disappointing about the Mail. It could have been totally up front about these positions being training posts and focused on the fairness or not of allowing training to be offered to specific ethnic groups, and it would have had a point, even if it's one I might not necessarily agree with. We could debate why you only ever see ethnic minorities specified in these sorts of story (here's a hint: could be that white people are never under-represented in these kinds of job). The paper could have opened up a debate on what is actually happening.
That applies to so much of what the Mail reports on, from immigration to crime to Health and Safety legislation and on and on and on. The paper could approach issues from a far more sensible perspective, but chooses to exaggerate and lie instead. When those lies and exaggerations extend to how much of a wonderful and unfair advantage ethnic minorities and other out-groups get, it's particularly nasty, and so are the potential consequences. That's when the paper stops being just disappointing and starts being potentially dangerous.
Never mind though. Newspaper editors have to persuade readers to hand over their money in the rain, which is clearly the more important consideration.