Blind man's guide dog barred from restaurant for offending Muslims

"A blind man has been turned away from a fashionable Indian restaurant because his guide dog offended Muslim staff", the Telegraph reports.

Except that, when you get to the end of the article, you find the following:

"Shamin Ahmed, a partner in the restaurant, said that he had written to Guide Dogs for the Blind to apologise for the incident. He said that although the owners of the venue are Muslim, he insisted religion was not a factor in the decision to refuse Mr Elder-Brown. 'We were worried about the hygiene, that is what happened, it was a mistake,' he said. 'I have had a letter from Guide Dogs for the Blind, I have sent a reply apologising about that.... we found out afterwards that guide dogs are allowed, I didn't know that'."

Still, never let facts spoil a good anti-Muslim story, eh?

See also the article "Prison chapel not to have a crucifix" which  reports: "A new prison chapel has been stopped from having a crucifix in case it offends Muslims."

Has the Telegraph decided to try and outbid the Daily Star and Express in the promotion of "Muslims are taking over" shock horror stories?