 |
| GB News, reviewing the MoS front page story last night |
'...But critics say that the plan treats those fleeing persecution as criminals...Well, they are, aren't they? They crossed the Channel illegally. Sorry, did I say that out loud?
BBC news this morning with a report about boat migrants. Every clip they showed was with young children being carried into the UK. Who are they kidding? Everyone can see the boats being unloaded with men only. Women and children are few and far between....
That's a familiar complaint.
Damp, debris and falling ceilings - a BBC investigation into accommodation for asylum seekers has uncovered serial concerns about housing conditions. Refugee organisations say they hear regularly about properties residents believe are unsafe, and they struggle to get help on a national phone line.
Just before 6.20pm I checked the Sky News website and saw this lead headline:
The Sky report quoted Gerald Darmanin, the megaphone-mouthed French interior minister, sounding off tonight and saying that those crossing the Channel are:
...attracted by England, especially the labour market which means you can work in England without any identification.
Britain must take its responsibility and limit its economic attractiveness. Britain left Europe, but not the world.
We need to work seriously on these questions, without being held hostage by domestic British politics.
M. Darmanin is very 'off-message' there, BBC-wise - at least in the first two paragraphs of the quote above.
He's saying [a] that the people in the boats are mainly economic migrants, and [b] that the UK's economically attractiveness is acting as a magnet for such people, and [c] that we in the UK need to make our country less of an easy touch to deter them from coming. And I think he's right on all three counts.
I wondered how the BBC News website would report that and saw that they got round to it late, at 6.54pm, under this headline:
Moreover, it was the BBC-palatable bits that led the BBC report.
[The BBC evidently wants to keep the focus on French anger at the non-'serious' UK.]
You have to go to the 15th paragraph of the whole BBC report, close to the end, to get a short mention of M. Darmanin's 'off-message' bits.
Now, I don't think there's any way that this isn't deliberately deceptive on the BBC's part.
They omitted the bit about how the migrants crossing the Channel are ''attracted by England, especially the labour market which means you can work in England without any identification''.
And - even more of a giveaway - that short 15th paragraph [''But he also argued that the UK had to assume responsibility by making itself less economically attractive for illegal migrants''] is immediately followed by a longer one that re-asserts the BBC's preferred take:
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK. Immigration expert Marley Morris told the BBC the UK had introduced policies that make it much harder to work illegally.
Note in passing here that this is cannily, preemptively caveated with the words ''in the few studies that exist'' - yet those studies are the ones the BBC have been citing again and again in recent days - and that the BBC then adds a touch of 'bias by authority' by calling Marley Morris an ''immigration expert''. I'd never heard of him, but he's a think-tanker from the centre-left IPPR with views to match. [I see that back in 2019 the BBC weren't averse to properly introducing him as ''Marley Morris, of the Institute for Public Policy Research, a centre-left think tank". Here they were keeping schtum and just going for ''immigration expert''.]
For me, this is an example of the BBC 'controlling the narrative' at its clearest. I don't see any other explanation for it.
To summarise:
The mouthy French interior minister said some things at a high-profile meeting that the UK was excluded from - some of which fitted the BBC's ongoing narrative, and some of which went completely against it. And, after waiting to report it for a while, the BBC crafted a report to;
[1] put all the emphasis on the criticism of the UK they approve of, and
[2] both [a] downplay and [b] try to counteract the criticism of the UK that flatly contradicts their ongoing narrative.
And [3] there was a spot of 'bias by omission' too.
It's agenda-spinning, biased, dishonest reporting, plain and simple.
Please feel free to read it for yourselves and disagree if you think I'm wrong.
 |
| Alp Mehmet on GB News |
There aren't more asylum seekers asking for sanctuary in Britain.
Figures released today indicate asylum applications at their highest level for six years, at 37,000.
And there's a canny bit of jiggery-pokery here. The Times reports the same figures and says:
Asylum claims are higher than the number recorded at the peak of the 2015-16 European migration crisis at the height of the Syrian civil war, when applications hit 36,546.
That asylum claims are comparable or even slightly higher than they were in 2015 - at the very height of the European migrant crisis - is quite something.
It's all about how you frame it obviously. The Times's headline couldn't be further from Mark Easton's 'frame':
Asylum claims at highest level for 20 years as Channel crossings surge
I'm intrigued though about what was going on throughout 2001. 🤔 Ah, yes.
Kevin Saunders, Former Chief Immigration Officer for the UK Border Force: In the longer term, we have got to have offshore reception centres for these people. The draw to the UK is phenomenal. They want to come here because basically everything is free. And that's the attraction. That's why they wants to come. They are going to get housing, education, money, everything. That's why they are wanting to come...Naga Munchetty, BBC: [interrupting] Because they are seeking asylum.Kevin Saunders: Ah, er...um...Naga Munchetty: Sorry, what do you mean by...what does that gesture mean?Kevin Saunders: I was in France for 16 years pulling people out of the back of lorries and such like. Most of the people that I dealt with were not asylum seekers, they were economic migrants. And I do think it's a little bit disingenuous of some of the people who've never met a migrant in their life to say that they are all asylum seekers. They are not all asylum seekers. A lot of them are just plain economic migrants.Naga Munchetty: What about those who aren't like the child that died on that boat yesterday?Kevin Saunders: I mean, I'm not saying that everybody is an economic migrant. But a lot of them are.
And then came a report from the BBC's Lewis Goodall which contradicted the lived testimony of Mr Saunders, former Chief Immigration Officer for the UK Border Force.
Here are some quotes from that:
Dear @BBCWorld, @BBCNews, this piece is full of bias! Why aren’t you putting any pressure on the Belarusian regime? You are fully aware that it’s Lukashenko who's playing with the fates of those people, aren’t you? Minsk is cynically using the migrants only for its political purposes. Those foreigners came to Belarus upon a mandatory invitation issued by state authorities, and on tourist visas. And now they want to illegally cross the Polish border. What we’re dealing with here is nothing but a hostile political operation controlled by the Belarusian services, incl. the KGB. And you're implying that Poland should be criticized? You gotta be kidding me.
What does that mean? The use of the passive tense suggests it could have been accidental (an unattended chip pan, some faulty wiring). But it's ambiguous and could also mean it had been started deliberately. But if the latter, by whom? By racist local residents attacking the asylum seekers maybe? Or by the asylum seekers themselves?
Ah, read on!...
"The fire began [passive tense again] after "upset" residents "caused a bit of a ruckus in the dining room", a charity said."
So it was the asylum seekers ("residents"). But a supportive charity says they were "upset" and it was only "a bit of a ruckus", so no big deal by the sounds of it:
Contrast that with this far more instantly understandable Daily Mail headline:
 |
| Yasminara Khan in Dover |
I see that Newsnight tackled the issue of illegal migrant Channel crossings last night - the issue highlighted by Nigel Farage earlier this year.
It did so. of course, in the usual BBC way...by focusing mainly on the problem of the far-right.
The language used throughout was fascinating. For example, there's a huge divide between those who prefer to use them term 'asylum seeker' and those who prefer the terms 'illegal' and 'migrant' - and Newsnight placed themselves emphatically in the former camp.
Also look out for the way reporter Yasminara Khan introduced Conservative MP Adam Holloway who wants to tighten the rules for asylum seeks:
We have seen social media posts across far-right networks in which the names and addresses of hotels housing asylum seekers are being widely shared. They are calling for the boycott of some of the hotel chains. Fake anti-Muslim conspiracies have been shared. But some go even further...
Cue Mr Holloway talking about tightening asylum rules, which makes it sound as if Adam Holloway was "going even further" than the far-right (with their sharing of hotel names and addresses and their spreading fake anti-Muslim conspiracies).
Either that was very clumsily-worded by Ms Khan, or it was a deliberate smear against Mr Holloway. Either way it should have been picked up by a Newsnight editor, re-edited or removed.
Here's a transcript:
Emily Maitlis: Throughout the summer, the footage of asylum seekers arriving on British shores in dinghies and small boats prompted much concern. Some were concerned about the welfare of those arriving and what they were fleeing, accusing the Government of not showing enough compassion. Others worried that the numbers were reaching peaks not seen since the Brexit referendum, and this concern has brought protest onto the streets. Britain First - a pro-repatriation group - leading the way. Yasminara Khan brings us this report on an issue that may have been buried by Covid, but has not gone away.
Yasminara Khan: Covid-19 means 2020 will be remembered for one thing. But alongside the pandemic there have been culture clashes. And rumbling debates about identity. And with the summer heat and people landing on British beaches in dinghies, a perennial issue that slipped out of public consciousness has, among all the turbulence, come back. Asylum and immigration.
Protestor: Boris, you're not listening. Priti Patel, you're not listening. Now is the call-out to the patriots of this country. If our Border Force and our government can't protect this border then the people must.
Professor Matthew Goodwin: At the moment it is not seen as a top three issue. Immigration is way down the list. But if it moves up the list and voters are saying the government is managing it badly, that's that potent cocktail.
David Moreland, UKIP: The public have been treated like idiots. Oh, well, we'll just ignore it, let it carry on, let it carry on. But it's getting worse and worse and worse and I really do fear, going forward, this is going to cause some major civil uprising. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
For many, Dover is a visual symbol. Not just of our borders but of Englishness itself. Of Empire and of wars fought to protect the country from invasion. And it's here in Dover that, for some, the battle to protect English borders and identity still goes on today. Anti-immigration protesters gathered in Dover earlier this month. A massive police presence and a turn-out nowhere near the thousands promised by the organisers. But real anger. Varied views here, too. In the shadow of cliffs that in World War II were the last glimpse of home for pilots leaving to take on Nazi Germany, among the crowd, one woman wears a T-shirt emblazoned with a swastika. There is a clear and visceral backlash to the summer's Black Lives Matter demonstrations, too.
Protestor: Take the knee! Take the knee - go on! There's a black man over there. Bend the knee! That's all you're good for. Bending down and BEEP.
On the demo, we met David Moreland, a former UK Parliamentary candidate and party spokesman. He has got long expressed anti-Muslim and anti-immigration views.
David Moreland: I'm here representing a large number of the country standing up against what I consider to be illegal migration in mass formation into the UK. The political elites at the moment are doing absolutely nothing to stop our country being... And it is an invasion. We are being invaded. There are some people here who should be entitled to come over and I fully agree with that. But the bulk of them have got no right to be here and we're doing nothing to remove them or stop them.
Anger at a perceived loss of national identity, at immigration, are nothing new. But this summer has seen a huge rise in the number of people arriving on this by dinghy. In the last three months, 4600 people made the crossing. In the whole of 29, that number was 1800. Asylum seekers, once processed by officials, are placed in hotels and hostels temporarily. The system that is supposed to disperse those seeking refuge around the country has been disrupted due to Covid. Some asylum seekers have had to stay in temporary accommodation longer. And with that has come negative attention, protests and even vigilante action from groups such as Britain First - an anti-migrant, anti-Muslim, pro-repatriation group.
Matthew Collins, Hope Not Hate: Britain First are knocking on the hotel doors, declaring themselves spokespersons for the Great British taxpayer. And they are portraying what are potentially very vulnerable people, portraying them as some kind of thieves. Or that they are there stealing from the Great British taxpayer. And I think that's not just sinister, it's really quite cruel as well.
The Home Office has condemned the violence and abuse directed at asylum seekers as completely unacceptable.
Matthew Collins, Hope Not Hate: No matter what the Home Secretary says, she hasn't got a grip on this at all. And her statements and the Government statements about this issue have become harsher and harsher and harsher. And I think that is, of course, to the detriment of us as a country and also, I think, puts these people coming to this country at greater risk because the public sympathy, or the empathy the public should have with these people, whether it's up for debate or not, has evaporated.
We have seen social media posts across far-right networks in which the names and addresses of hotels housing asylum seekers are being widely shared. They are calling for the boycott of some of the hotel chains. Fake anti-Muslim conspiracies have been shared. But some go even further.
Adam Holloway, MP (Conservative): I don't care what the far-right are doing. That's for them and if they want to wander into hotels and intimidate young illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, then that just tells you about them. What I'm more interested in is, until we can change the rules so that is very difficult for you to claim asylum if you come in illegally in this way, then sadly this will go on and on. And also, frankly, we'll have more drownings, like that poor boy the other day.
The logjam caused by coronavirus is causing another set of problems. We understand that just last week, Coventry Council won an injunction against the Home Office to prevent a third hotel in the city being used to house asylum seekers after police, health services and even charities supporting migrants said they were too stretched. Newsnight has seen a letter from six council leaders in the West Midlands - Labour and Tory - to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel.
"We can no longer accept a situation in which less than half of councils house asylum seekers in their areas and in which just 20 of the UK's 343 local authorities are home to as many as 50% of all dispersed asylum seekers."
The Labour leader of Coventry Council, George Duggins, was one of those who signed the letter. I asked him, when are the council told that asylum seekers will be arriving in the city?
George Duggins, Labour: Well, sometimes when they arrive. It is often as late as that, when they arrive. And it's often after the fact. So this is all part and parcel of what needs to be a realignment of the relationship between the Home Office and local authorities. There needs to be a complete revision as to how the Home Office deal with this going forward.
Despite the publicity given to the rise in Channel crossings, overall numbers of asylum applications are down. There were 4850 claims between April and June this year. Down from 7657 in the same period last year. And on the wider question of immigration - not asylum - away from the far right extremes, many voters remain concerned about the scale of immigration. Taking back control was, of course, the Leave slogan. And Leave won the Brexit referendum.
Professor Matthew Goodwin: For many voters that put Boris Johnson into office, they were expecting to have what they would call control over immigration and lower numbers overall. And what we have seen with the latest data on net migration is that we are running at a net migration level of around 312,000 per year, which is actually not far off the peak of around 330,000 before the referendum. And I think probably over time, some Leave voters, some Boris Johnson voters, some Conservative voters will start to say, actually, does this government have a grip of immigration?
However you define "grip", no one would suggest it's an easy thing to achieve. Those shouting loudest and angriest will always be there. Massing on Dover is nothing new for the far-right. The question for the Government is, if worries about control and numbers become a mainstream concern again, what then?
Emily Maitlis: We did ask the Home Office for an interview, but nobody was available. In a statement, the Home Office said: The UK has a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation and support whilst their asylum application is considered. Asylum seekers are housed where appropriate accommodation is available and we are encouraging more local authorities to help. We take the well-being of asylum seekers extremely seriously and any abuse is completely unacceptable.
The sad story of Abdulfatah Hamdallah, the 28 year old Sudanese migrant who drowned after trying to cross the English Channel last week, is a tale of shattered dreams. In The Guardian's account, he left the Sudanese state of West Kordofan because life there was "tough" and there was "nothing he could do" in Sudan. He joined his siblings in Libya where they worked as car washers in Tripoli in order to send some money to their children back home. He eventually left for France, travelling via Italy. But, having been in France for some three years and having his asylum claim rejected by the French, he made the fateful decision, even though he couldn't swim, to use an inflatable dinghy with shovels for oars and set off in the middle of the night across the English Channel. The paper quotes Abdulfatah’s last words on Facebook, written in Arabic in June: “On the palm of fate we walk, and don’t know what’s written”.
His death was widely covered, but not - initially at least - well-covered. The media took the false claim that Abdulfatah was 16 at face value, and some media outlets used that for reporting that crossed into open activism.
The first draft of the BBC News website's report on the story made particular play of his wrongly-ascribed age. Here are its first four paragraphs:
A 16-year-old boy from Sudan who disappeared at sea has been found dead on a French beach.
French minister Marlene Schiappa said the boy's body was found on a beach in Sangatte, Calais, on Wednesday.
UK Home Secretary Priti Patel said the death of the young migrant was a "brutal reminder" that people smugglers exploit the vulnerable.
The Home Office would not confirm whether the boy was trying to reach the UK.
Its headline was:
Channel crossings: Body of teenage migrant found on French beach
In the remaining five paragraphs, Abdulfatah Hamdallah is also called "this child" and classed as one of "the boys camping in Calais".
The report went through eight revisions - all increasingly extremely unbalanced in their focus on criticism of the UK and dismissal of UK government responses - not one of which corrected his age from 16 to 28. The final version is still up, uncorrected, still under the same headline. It's the report most readers will have seen.
The BBC did mention the fact - smuggled it in, so to speak - in a couple of other, later, far-less-prominent articles. In the first, Channel crossings: People smugglers 'not behind migrant death', BBC Paris correspondent Lucy Williamson added a rather sheepish-sounding 'analysis' to it which ends:
But the message from this tragedy is no less shocking, some feel, just because the man who rowed into the Channel using stolen shovels, was not a teenager himself.
Indeed.
Finally, yesterday the BBC website published a further report headlined:
Channel crossings: Sudanese man who died trying to reach UK is named
But TV Eyes confirms that viewers of BBC One's main bulletins have never heard the correction. The emotionally-charged report from Lucy Williamson on Wednesday's News at Ten, for example (which focused on the conditions in the Calais camps, accusations against the UK government and how Abdulfatah Hamdallah's desperate final act was "a teenage retort to police, politicians and laws") contained 6 uses of 'boy/boys' and 5 uses of 'teenager/teenagers/teenage', and there have been no updates since Thursday.
The story has evidently been dropped by BBC One. This isn't untypical of the BBC these days. Whether it was dropped deliberately or simply because BBC News increasingly has the attention span of a gnat is hard to say. But surely it merited a short, on air-correction at the very least?
