The morning's Sunday Morning Live, inevitably, discussed the migrant crisis, asking the question "Should Britain be a safe haven for migrants?"
Sian Williams, just as inevitably, began by focusing on the issue everyone (at the BBC) seems to think is the most important aspect of all: whether David Cameron was wrong to use the word "swarm".
Three out of her four guests agreed it was wrong to use such language; one said it wasn't such a big deal (and got loudly talked over for his pains).
The panel consisted of the Independent's Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (the one doing most of the loud talking-over), left-wing former Anglican bishop Stephen Lowe, left-leaning former Independent columnist Christina Patterson and Pastor Clement Okusi, lead pastor of Potters House Church, Croydon.
Despite initial appearances to the contrary and a bit of heat (with Pastor Clement trying to pursue a less predictable path and Yasmin yabbering over everyone else as usual), the panel converged on the value of EU-wide controlled mass migration and on the shamefulness of Britain's commitment to refugees.
As a commenter at Biased BBC anticipated before watching it, "So that's no real debate at all then, just all shades of the same argument" (a very accurate prediction, I think).
Tommy Sandhu then read out some viewer messages, some of which sounded pretty extreme, before featuring a viewer on video who then strongly denounced those kind of people (with those kind of views) as "sociopaths". Sian then invited Christina Patterson to agree with the video guy about such people becoming "sociopaths", which Christina duly did.
And so on and so forth.
That was not a balanced panel or a balanced discussion.
The BBC is really not helping itself with this kind of thing - as the public vote would have shown if the programme still dared to put its questions to the audience (which it doesn't).
The BBC and most of the mainstream media are careful to avoid any reference to an Australian style response i.e. process asylum seekers very far away from your mainland, in secure conditions, and don't rush the process, since the onus is on the asylum seeker to prove they have grounds for refugee status. If we did that, then the "swarm" would become a "trickle" of (probably genuine) asylum seekers.
ReplyDeleteI worked with law firms years back assisting asylum seekers at UK home office. Can say the Home Office itself from my viewpoint was a shambles. People who were not genuine were obvious to me some very so when they made their statements. Others who were very troubled were questioned no end. I never saw ...anything come of obviously flawed cases that is to curtail them. ...nor did I see genuinely distressed claimants gain reassurance n security. I had some success on paper applications for Christians in Pakistan Somalians and Romanian Gypsies. But am fully aware of mistakes made grave ones where those returned suffered even today incarceration and confinement multiples attempts to hang....to date due to errors and recklessness of our systems.
DeleteThat is in relation to Sikhs returned to India...for which home office e had its own blanket policy which did not accommodate...those fleeing genocidal period of abusive violation. Professor bhullar continues to be such victim, amongst other political prisoners...still confined despite there being every statement witness and legal principle shouting for his release for some 20 years. That is how one can put such people into a corner I guess...at a distance...to prove their case.
DeleteJonDon tries a fair bit, and his posts usually get copied to BBC World News FaceBook and BBC News.
ReplyDeleteAnd on this topic, they really don't fare well in the comments from any quarter.
Oddly, they have dried up lately. Can't think why.