Complaint
A listener objected to a presenter鈥檚 description of asylum seekers, some of whom the Government sought to send to Rwanda, as 鈥渁 story about thousands of the most terrified people in the world, many who have suffered immense trauma, even before taking the kind of risk in crossing the Channel that few of us could ever imagine鈥. 聽The ECU considered whether these remarks met the 麻豆约拍鈥檚 standards for due impartiality.
Outcome
The presenter, Amol Rajan, spoke in the context of the Government鈥檚 plan to send some asylum applicants to Rwanda and the fact a legal challenge had prevented the first proposed flight from leaving. 聽In an introduction to an interview with David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr Rajan said
鈥淔light of fancy鈥, 鈥淕rounded鈥, 鈥淩wandan Air Farce鈥. 聽Clich茅s and puns already abound in the discussion of why last night鈥檚 flight to Kigali didn鈥檛 happen. 聽At heart, this is a story about thousands of the most terrified people in the world, many who have suffered immense trauma, even before taking the kind of risk in crossing the Channel that few of us could ever imagine. 聽It鈥檚 also about what makes a 21st century immigration policy effective, what it can and should look like in an era where mass migrations are becoming more, rather than less common. 聽Let鈥檚 interrogate the second of those issues.
The ECU considered it was clear Mr Rajan was offering a brief description of the kind of people who might be affected by the Government鈥檚 proposal. 聽It did not share the complainant鈥檚 impression 聽that it was 鈥渁bsurd to describe them as among the most terrified when they decide to seek a better life in the UK than they believe is on offer in France鈥. 聽The ECU understood Mr Rajan to be referring to the trauma some people may have faced in their homeland which led them to seek asylum, or the fear they experienced in making the journey across the Channel, often in small boats run by organised crime gangs.
Not all of those seeking asylum necessarily faced such conditions and the ECU accepted Mr Rajan could have included this in his introduction. 聽However, he was reflecting the fact many of those seeking asylum once they arrived in the UK had faced dangerous and traumatic conditions in the course of their journey. 聽His language was therefore not 鈥渆motive or lacking in objectivity鈥 as the complainant suggested.
Not Upheld