Immigration: How the BBC lost count of complaints
The BBC has been forced to defend a Panorama investigation into immigration after it received many calls and emails from viewers angry at the way that it perpetuated racist myths.
The programme, “Immigration – How we Lost Count“, was transmitted on July 23 and purported be an impartial look at how the government has lost count of the number of migrants arriving in places like Slough.
However, the programme merely reinforced racist myths about migrants.
It repeatedly claimed that over-stretched council services are the result of immigration, rather than under-funding. The program did not acknowledge that migrants actually contribute more to the economy than they ever take in benefits.
It also featured a number of alleged examples of anti-social behaviour by immigrants – including locals accusing Roma gypsies of defecating on the street – and then invited the audience to generalise to all immigrants.
It stated crime had been rising in Slough and implied that this is linked to the presence of Roma gypsies. The police, as the program reports, actually blame rising population, not any single racial group.
The programme was broadcast after months of racist hysteria in the media about immigration to Slough, much of it led by the BBC. A headline on the BBC website read: “Roma children flood into Slough“.
By Tom Wall
The programme can be viewed in full here.
Here is the BBC’s response to viewers’ complaints. The length of the reply point to the weight of criticism levelled against the Corporation:
Thank you for your email regarding ‘Panorama: Immigration: How We Lost Count’.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.
The programme has responded to concerns raised by some viewers about this edition of Panorama which transmitted on 23 July regarding immigration, the response is below:
“However we look at it, immigration is always a controversial topic which arouses strong feelings from individuals of every political persuasion.
This was a programme about how the government have lost count of the number of people living in our towns and cities and how that impacts on the local authorities who have to provide services to their residents. Obviously the pressure on services is greater in areas of high migration such as Slough.
This was NOT a programme about Asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. It was made quite clear throughout the programme that the majority of people who have come to Slough to work have done so legally. Slough has a long history of attracting migrants from all over the world. It is an extremely diverse town (more than 128 nationalities have registered for work) and it has a strong sense of social cohesion and integration. All these points were made in the programme.
However, since the European Union widened its borders in 2004, many more legal migrants have arrived, and while Slough has welcomed them, they have contributed to the pressure on the town’s infrastructure. As a nation we have encouraged immigration for the economic benefits it brings and the taxes paid by migrant workers boost our governments’ coffers. Buy most of this money stays with central government and does not help the councils who must provide local services. Slough Borough Council are so concerned that they commissioned 3 independent research projects to assess the scale of the problem and have been lobbying Parliament for a solution.
Our aim in this programme was to report the story as we found it and that meant in part reflecting the most commonly held opinions by people who actually live in Slough (many of whom are former migrants themselves).
Inevitably, some of these opinions are unpalatable to many people, but that does not mean that these voices do not also have a right to be heard. Indeed, one could argue that it is possibly more important in a democracy to hear the opinions of those we don’t agree with, than simply hearing the opinions of those we do.
It is a fact that more people create more rubbish and the impact this is having on Slough’s refuse collection service has been well documented. More rubbish in the streets makes people disgruntled and is one of the issues which increases negative feelings towards newcomers. This is an unpleasant reality we would do well not to ignore.
Sometimes, hearing people voicing negative beliefs enables us to dispel myths, such as the notion, commonly held, that migrants are given access to local authority housing on arrival in the country - not true. In fact, our programme tried to dispel that myth and point up both the need for housing and the pressure on Slough’s housing department as well as how some migrants are being exploited by unscrupulous landlords.
Our job as journalists is to report the facts of the situation on the ground. If we presented a report which did not acknowledge the stresses and strains on the town and how these are making normally reasonable people feel, we would not be doing our job. Some viewers have suggested that our reporting may have encouraged racism, we have tried our best for this not to be the case, but just as a programme about obesity may result in some people expressing prejudice, it should not mean issues of major importance are to be avoided.
Some viewers have made comments about the way both the Somali and the Roma residents in Slough were portrayed in the programme. Most of the Somali groups in Slough are legal migrants with Dutch passports, who have come voluntarily direct from Holland. They chose to leave Holland for their own reasons and come to live in Britain instead. This is their right as European citizens to do so. But it is still a fact that they now need housing and other services like any other local residents. As with the other residents of Slough, including the vast majority of Poles, those that work, pay taxes which go back to central government, not to the local council which must provide their services.
While Roma gypsies are indigenous to Europe and are not necessarily from Romania, The Roma featured in this programme were mainly Roma gypsies from Romania. Like the other European citizens, they have chosen to come to live in Slough of their own free will. The pressure put upon the local councils’ resources from some of this community is proportionally far greater than their numbers suggest.
There are also a very large number of residents who have complained to both the council and the police about anti-social behaviour from some of this group. The allegation that some of the Roma have been defecating in public was raised by no less than 50-70 local residents in a meeting which we attended but were not allowed to film. As a result we felt it was appropriate and representative to have 2 locals mentioning a problem felt by so many. While both the council and the police are trying to address these issues, it is indicative of the problem that not one member of the Roma community could be persuaded to attend a wider community meeting. Richard Bilton’s attempt to talk to some of the Roma on the street needed to be seen and their polite refusal on the grounds that people had already judged them was, we felt, very powerful.
Some viewers have taken issue with Slough’s efficiency and suggested that their problems may be more one of inefficiency than dispute over population statistics and under funding. It could be argued that councils can always “do better” and there will always be debate around how funding is distributed particularly as resources become scarce. We have to deal with facts, and critics should note that this year’s independent Audit Commission report on Slough describes it as “performing well - consistently above minimum requirements” and notes that while resources are constrained, the council have secured significant savings without reducing service delivery.
It is likely that the issues raised by this programme will continue to provoke debate for some time to come. This we hope will be a positive thing as it raises legitimate questions about the long term impact of population movement across Europe and how our country is run. We hope it will not be used to further ignorance or prejudice.”
Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that your comments, concerns and misgivings have been recorded for the attention of senior management and the relevant programme makers.
Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Colin Thomson
BBC Information
