Daily Mail admits Motability story was incorrect

Via their new Corrections page:

Last Sunday we said some 3,200 families of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder were believed to have been given cars under the Motability scheme.

In fact that total is the combined figure for two categories of recipients of the Higher Mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance and includes other behavioural disorders.

Recipients choose whether or not to spend their allowance on a Motability car; generally about 30 per cent do so.

Also, we described the qualification for the Lower Mobility component, rather than the Higher Mobility component required to claim a car, for which individuals must be declared virtually unable to walk.

So for all those people who shout "THEY ARE ALL SCROUNGERS IT WAS IN THE TABLOIDS", don't always believe what you read.

In the same column, DAILY MAIL DISPLAYS BRITISH FLAG INCORRECTLY SHOCK:

Last week we printed the Union Flag incorrectly in a tea towel promotion.

The thick white lines of the St Andrew’s Cross should have been above the red St Patrick’s Cross on one side of the flag and below it on the other.

Bloody Daily Mail.

They are all Marxist anarchist hippies who want to despoil our flag and have us all run by lentil eating bra burning EU bureaucrats erm hold on...

Here's some useful info if you spot any more crap in the Daily Mail:

If you wish to point out any inaccuracy, please write to Readers’ Editor, The Mail on Sunday, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email correctionsATmailonsunday.co.uk

Will Richard Littlejohn and the Taxpayers Alliance apologise for repeating this incorrect story?

The Taxpayers Alliance have issued a half-arsed update at the bottom of their article:

[Update: We have edited the post above to clarify that the figure of 3,000 is an estimation of the number eligible for the cars, rather than those who received them, and that this refers to a broader spectrum of behavioural disorders, in line with this article. This strengthens the argument in the original post that this is a small part of the overall cost of the scheme.]

They've also closed the comments section after just 14 comments, all but one negative.