16/03/05Below are some of the complaints sent to Channel 4, regarding the
programme:
'I am a solicitor who deals with immigration matters and am therefore aware
of the issues and facts behind the programme.
' No doubt the programme makers will argue that this was an opinion piece
from a respected journalist with otherwise liberal views and as such he was
simply putting forward “uncomfortable opinions”, and that such
a programme was perfectly legitimate.
' The problem with the programme however was that it was not simply Mr Liddle’s
unpleasant views but that it asserted considerable information as “facts”
when there is no basis for such “facts”. Its whole approach was
misleading. Mr Liddle repeatedly made huge and unacceptable generalizations
about muslims and immigrants and disease and crime etc. He would make a comment
about one particular circumstance that he disliked and then would apply such
a criticism at every single immigrant. He also applied the same kind of absurd
generalizations about the UK and “our culture”. He put forward
his own opinions and then gave them as representing the opinions of every
UK citizen. UK culture we were told was democratic and tolerate and “we”
understand rights and tolerance etc but foreigners don’t. The way the
whole piece was based on such generalizations was simply embarrassing.
' He was allowed to put forward his arguments upon a factual basis where that
factual basis was simply untrue. Statements to the effect that “the
country needs millions of new homes in the South East just to house the 5
million new immigrants” is simply alarmist and untrue. He repeated criticized
an illiberal attitude held by a muslim person and then implied that all muslims
hold the exact same attitude. Etc etc.
'I was embarrassed and surprised by the low quality of the editorial control
of the programme.
'It was simply irresponsible to put out such a programme.'
Stuart Hearne
'I strongly object to the misleading and inflammatory programme entitled "Immigration
is a Time Bomb" broadcast on 10 March 2005.
'May I start by examining the statistics presented by Rod Liddle. He stated
that the UK population was due to increase over the next 30 years by 6.1 million
people, of whom 5.1 million would be "immigrants and their children."
It was easy to miss the "...and their children", particularly as
the accompanying graphic stated, "Next 30 years: 6.1 million more people,
5.1 million immigrants" and Liddle went on to refer to "5.1 million
new immigrants."
'The figures have come from the Government Actuaries Department. Of the projected
6.1 million increase in population, 3.6 million - not 5.1 million - will be
immigrants. However, as immigrants tend to be in the younger age groups, they
will have an effect on the birth rate, so that of the 19 million expected
births over the next 30 years, around 1.5 million will be the children or
grandchildren of immigrants. Liddle has added 3.6 million immigrants to 1.5
million children of immigrants and come up with "5.1 million new immigrants."
'The descendents of immigrants are not immigrants. They are people like Michael
Howard and Michael Portillo. People like me - my father's father was English,
his mother French. My mother was a British citizen born in South Africa of
a French mother and a Portuguese/English father. There are a lot of us about,
and there always have been.
'No mention was made of the fact that without this influx of younger immigrants,
the NHS would collapse, economic growth would decline and pensioners would
endure a poor standard of living without the wealth our immigrant workforce
creates. No mention was made of the fact that for decades more people have
emigrated than immigrated, nor was any explanation offered as to why the recent
reversal of this trend is expected to persist for 30-odd years.
'Liddle goes on to portray British Muslims as intolerant, fanatical and homophobic.
While the attitude to homosexuality among some Muslims, including immams,
is deplorable, it would be easy to find Christians, including priests, with
identical views. A quiet and gentle gay couple I used to know were hounded
out of their home and forced to move out of the area by insults, graffiti
and vandalism. It was not Muslims who were responsible for the abuse.
'Liddle gives an uncritical platform for the obnoxious and insidious views
of Nick Griffin of the BNP, and presents a gloomy picture of a Britain overrun
by Muslim and African immigrants bringing disease, terrorism and ethnic conflict,
and threatening "the basic values of Britishness."
'No mention was made of the tremendous social, cultural and economic benefits
which immigrants have brought to this country, nor of the immigrant doctors
and nurses, including Africans and Muslims, who are the mainstay of the NHS.
No mention of the fact that over half of immigrants are British returnees,
and that more British people are returning than leaving. No mention of the
fact that roughly half the foreign workers in the UK come from the EU, Australia,
New Zealand or the US. Perhaps we should crack down on the Irish, the French
and the Italians, as they constitute by far the largest groups....or would
that not fit with Liddle's racist thesis that our British way of life is under
threat from immigrants from elsewhere?
'I realise that the programme was meant to be one-sided, as a counterweight
to the earlier programme by Kenan Malik, but there is a difference between
being one-sided and being misleading and alarmist. The programme was also
bound to reinforce racial and religious prejudice.
'Has Mr. Liddle now joined the BNP, which has welcomed the programme with
glee? I hope that no reputable newspaper or broadcaster will ever again offer
him the opportunity to express such poisonous views. I also hope that Channel
4 will now apologise for this dreadful programme, which can do nothing to
promote the informed and healthy debate on the issues of asylum, immigration
and racism which is so desperately needed.'
Pete Winstanley
'I must object to the screening of this deeply ignorant and
offensive programme. Its content disappointed me in that, expecting a 'counterpoint'
to the Kenan Malik programme earlier in the week, it actually depended entirely
on a collection of the media's current populist selection of racism, incitement
to religious hatred and BNP lies. This was an irresponsible and inaccurate
programme which I hope will be regretted and apologised for.'
Lorraine Hall
'What were the programme directors and the Channnel 4 controller thinking
of when they sanctiioned Rod Liddle's incompetent and offensive programme?
' I understand that although not the BBC, Channel 4 was also set up with inbuilt
resonsibilities and also has a duty to its public. Surely this means that
programmes - if not always balanced - should present accurate information,
not homophobic assertions, racist accusations and information and statistics
that are just plain wrong.
'Your programme went as close as it dared to the crime of inciting racial
hatred. Is THAT where Channel 4 wishes to position itself?'
Gillian Klein, Editor of Race Equality Teaching, and director of Trentham
Books
'I would like to complain about the television programme Immigration Is A
Timebomb by Rod Liddle. The broadcast contained dispicable racist content
that breached Press Complaints Commission guidelines, including the use if
the term "illegal asylum seeker", which directly breaches your Code
of Practice.
'The programme was racist, and blatantly Islamophobic in content, (religious
bigotry about to become a criminal offence of its own).
'The programme took the shameful precedent of presenting officially-disproved
misinformation as fact. Supposed figures on population growth, dismissed by
the Home Office as myth and racist propaganda, were repeated on this pseudo-factual
broadcast.
'When such sensitive matters as race are discussed on television, it is highly
dangerous and irresponsible to present unsubstantiated myth as fact. Men,
women, and children of minority backgrounds, including asylum seekers have
been raped, maimed, and killed, because of lies and stererotypes presented
by the media as fact.
'Throughout the programme, Rod Liddle consistently abused the power of free
speech to inflame hatred for political purposes, against an already under
seige minority of law-abiding citizens, British Muslims, defaming a peace-loving
faith of inherently breeding terror and violence, comparible to Mr Griffin's
illegal remarks about Islam to which the police issued an arrest warrant.
'Talking of the convicted terrorist and racial inciter, (Nick Griffin), there
was no excuse for interviewing such an indiidual on British television in
a non-news context. It was not in the public interest to allow him to broadcast
his bigoted views to the nation. Griffin is currently under charges for incitement
to racial hatred. Allowing him to television, may also be seen as subjudicy.
'There is a moral aspect, if morality matters anymore. Mr Griffin is a convicted
criminal, and therefore, ethically, shouldn't be paid to appear on television.
'Channel Four must issue an immediate apology for broadcasting this non-factual
racist diatribe. '
Don
'I would like to register my disgust and offense with Channel
4 for broadcasting an interview with Nick Griffin of the BNP as part of 'Immigration
is a time bomb' (10 March Channel 4) . I live in the North West so have already
seen the hatred and violence that the BNP have stirred up in places such as
Oldham, Burnley etc.
'Now Nick Griffin is standing just over the border in Keighley and Channel
4 have given him free reign (and free airtime) to give his own election broadcast,
allowing him to present fascism and racial hatred as a rational political
policy. This is a man who is being investigated for incitement to racial hatred,
and who has already received a two year suspended sentence for this offence
in 1998. Yet in the programme he was unchallenged when arguing for freedom
of speech and Rod Liddle even stated (being the authority he is! ) that Griffin
should not have been arrested for stating his views.
'Channel 4 cannot argue that this is a controversial counter argument to other
shows it has put out because shock horror.... people do not watch all of one
channel's output - they watch shows in isolation. Someone watching that show
in isolation would have been presented with a lot of myth as fact... not dangerous
in isolation but deadly when that myth is used to promote hatred and violence.
'I'm a huge fan of Channel 4 and of cutting edge programmes that push the
boundaries but I'm deeply shocked that Channel 4 broadcast a programme that
presented as fact opinions not even worthy of the worst reactionary tabloid
excesses. Channel 4 should apologise for giving creedence, credibility and
legitimicy to racists and fascists especially just before a general election.'
Diana Clarke, Manchester
'I watched the coverage Kenan Malik gave to immigration in
the immigration debate that you are hosting on your channel. I was pleasantly
surprised by the coverage and by the fact that the positive contributions
of immigrants and asylum seekers was stressed. The programme with its call
for open borders was indeed a breath of fresh air at a time when asylum seekers,
the most vulnerable of people are being progressively demonised.
'However while Malik's programme was positive and well researched, you then
managed to dismay and disgust many people by the following programme by Rod
Liddle, which went to great lengths, not only to lie but with the cowardice
that is Liddle's watchword, to demonise asylum seekers and immigrants in this
country thus making them ever more prey to the thugs and hooligans of the
Nazi right that Liddle so avidly courts.
'He used the buzz words calculated to arouse negativity in the listeners like
'politically correct'. A short hand term for the whine 'what's wrong with
being a racist? '. He then used the words 'bogus asylum seeker'. This is calculated
to identify those fleeing persecution as frauds and it breaches the code of
practice of the Press Complaints commission.
'He also gave a free platform to Griffen, a man who represents all that is
worst in this country and is awaiting trial for racist incitement, to vent
his poison. It is laughable for Griffen to talk of 'free speech' when he and
all he represents are the enemies of freedom. Perhaps you and Mr Liddle are
too young to remember that we fought a war to rid ourselves of people like
him. You give him acceptance and your channel should be ashamed of itself.
'He talked of immigrants bringing in HIV and AIDS. Another slur calculated
to make black people targets for attack by our home-grown thugs. Naturally
he did not talk about the fact that our health and welfare services would
collapse if all its non-British staff were to leave.
'He used statistics which are highly questionable like, a city the size of
Sheffield built every year etc. He did not tell us how many of the people
he is talking about who arrive at these shores are from the EU and are entitled
to come here, how many are people born in Britain who are returning after
migrating somewhere else and indeed how many are either Americans, Australians
or New Zealanders, who if I am correct make up a majority of those coming
here. His statement was a crude attempt to incite racial hatred against those
who are part of a visible minority.
'Finally he gratuitously insulted Muslims who live in this country and make
a valuable contribution to our diverse society. He made deeply offensive remarks
about their faith, thus inciting attacks on them for their faith at a time
when more than any other group they are vulnerable to attack. It is interesting
here to consider that when racists spew out their poison, they use both sides
of the coin to advance their nasty objectives. Thus do we see that the migrants
are so promiscuous that they bring in AIDS and then on the other side they
are so controlling that women in their communities have no sexual freedom.
It seems that they are damned either way. It reminds me of the slurs against
Jews in the last century. Either they were bloated capitalists or they were
Communist fellow travellers undermining the state. Then it was politics, now
it is sex. But the racist discourse does not vary.
'As commissioners of programmes you should be aware of the nature of the society
in which we live as documented by this piece in the Guardian:
'Compared with a white European, an African or Caribbean person was 11 times
more likely to be the victim of a racial crime, an Arab or Egyptian 12 times,
an Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi 13 times and a southern or eastern European
eight times. A Chinese or Japanese person was five times more at risk and
analysts claim a Jewish person was three times as likely to be subject to
a racially or religiously aggravated crime.
'Under these circumstances I can only say that by giving this racist free
rein you have increased the chances of assault on some of our most visible
minorities. This was not a contribution to any debate but a rant calculated
to make racial hatred socially acceptable and is thus skating close to the
wind of illegality.
'Your programme was an absolute disgrace and an insult to all of us who want
to be proud of our country, The very least you could do is mount an apology
to those you have insulted.'
Diana Neslen
'I wish to register the strongest complaint and advise you
of my absolute disgust at the horrendous, racist and inaccurate programme
which you chose to air last week. (Immigration is a time bomb) The programme
was littered with mis-information, myths, stereotyping and highly offensive
patent lies.
'The danger posed to our societal cohesion, lies at the door of your sensationalist
and irresponsible programming rather than those of legitimate asylum seekers
or Islamic believers.
'I will certainly not be tuning in to Channel 4 in the forseeable future and
will be urging everyone I know to seriously consider doing likewise until
a formal apology is broadcast and a serious review of your broadcasting policies
undertaken.'
Kim Turner
'I was appalled and deeply saddened by Channel 4's broadcast of Liddle's views
on immigration and asylum on Thursday 12 March. The issue - to pre-empt the
ready-made response usually voiced by polemicists such as Liddle - is not
that immigration policy should not be discussed, on the grounds that to do
so is inherently racist.
'The point is that it is crucially to do with where one is coming from in
opening the discussion. Liddle's starting place is manifestly not a humanitarian
concern for the experience and well-being of present and future citizens of
this country, in their totality, nor is it a broader world view which might
enable discussion of how different cultures and religious and interest groups
might learn to accomodate each other. This is surely the responsible debate
we should be having and which Channel 4 should be promoting, instead of trading
on people's most primitive fears under the guise of informed debate. The debate
as Liddle presented it was, needless to say, woefully ill informed and partial,
as I am sure will have already been pointed out to Channel 4 by countless
workers in the field.'
Robert Snell
'I was appalled at the showing of the recent channel 4 documentary
'Immigration is a Time Bomb'. I am in agreement that this issue does need
to be debated and that some concerns regarding current immigration deserve
consideration. However, the programme made sensationalist claims regarding
numbers of immigrants without substantiating these. It was in no way balanced
in its presentation - nor did it make any distinction between economic migrants,
people who we invite to fill skills shortages and asylum seekers and those
granted refugee status. Claims that immigrants merely place a burden on our
economy, cause tensions, bring in disease and often promote terrorism were
made with only limited anecdotal evidence and were highly racist - even though
the programme suggests that we should not even consider that we are racism
- and deeply offensive particularly to the Muslim community.
'Britishness was defined as liberal and decadent and other values rejected
- yet we are already a pluriform society with many different beliefs and cultures
- visit an inner city area and suburbia for evidence of this fact.
'We were shown a failed asylum seeker, evidently with little quality of life
here and unable to work and denied dignity, while being told that Britain
was a great place for people to come and life is too easy for them here. Trafficking
was raised as a problem of allowing immigration, rather than an option taken
by people, not because Britain is a 'soft touch' but because we have strengthened
our borders and leave desperate people little option.
'Many issues raised in the programme, if founded, argue for integration and
tolerance - demanded of the British people and not only those who come here.
Is not that a 'British value' too? The programme did not consider the human
rights and dignity of immigrants. The argument seemed to be against difference
- not wanting people who are not like us.
'I welcome honest discussion on the 'immigration debate'. However, the programme
did not promote such discussion but in its one-sided, racism, anti-Islam and
sensationalist approach, only provided ammunition for those in the far-right,
such as the BNP party represented, and raised and fuels unsubstantiated fears
already surrounding those who we invite here to help our economy or who we
have a duty to protect under the Human Rights Declaration.
'I would urge channel four to produce an apology for this racist, anti-immigrant
propaganda.'
Kate Proctor
'To broadcast a programme that made such claims about immigration in the UK,
as though they were fact is probably, quite an inappropriate action, and can
only serve, to promote further, racial divisions and intolerance in our society.
It is also an action, that one would not, normally associate with Channel
4 and responsible journalism. More, say with the Daily Mail, a newspaper that
supported appeasement with Hitler during the second world war, and which also
supported Mosley and his British Union of fascists, during the 30s.
'To broadcast an interview with Nick Griffin of the BNP, allowing his arguments,
without any trace of a challenge, on his views, makes one wonder, was this
programme a party political broadcast ? The BNP is a fascist party, freedom
of speech, respect, tolerance, is not an action one could associate with that
organisation, or the record of its leader, Griffin. His record speaks for
itself, it was only a few months ago, that he was arrested on suspicion of
incitement to commit racial hatred. He also has a suspended prison sentence
on a similar issue, and very many of his party members, are convicted thugs,
racists, and people who have a string of convictions, mostly connected with
their ultra right wing views.
'I do hope, that yourselves at Channel 4 can take it upon yourself, to take
a long hard look at this matter, and hopefully in a responsible way, look
at some form of positive action you can take, to reverse, the potential damage
that this programme, may, have created. '
Mick Rix
'I am a firefighter and have been activly involved, as have
all stakeholders in the Fire Service, with increasing the numbers of Firefighters
and Control Operators who come from a wider, more diverse background so as
to reflect the whole community we serve.
'Such programming as you saw fit to broadcast does nothing to assist in ensuring
emergency service workers fully and fairly reflect those they serve and indeed
represent. It is little wonder we have recently seen police officers sacked
for racism, instilled during recruitment and training, if people are subjected
to such slanted broadcasts.
'I am sure you will agree that no racist ought to be in a position of power
where that power, as in the case of the fire service for example, could literally
mean a matter of life or death. If there were for example a car crash with
two people trapped our training is to prioritise by threat to life, those
we assist first. A standard practice. It should not be based on sex, age,
creed race or any other factor other than the urgency for assistance. If a
racist were in such a position I have some doubts as to whether their assessment
would be wholly unbiased.
'In Hampshire we have recently seen a part time firefighter use his position
and uniform, to promote the ideals of the BNP by standing for them as a candidate
in the European elections. Your assistance in airing the views of the BNP
hardly gave a balanced broadcast with viewers exposed to one 'party's' leaders
views.
'Using a mainstream channel to broadcast such a biased and damaging programme
will do nothting to assist the public sector services to convey that the public
they serve will be represented fairly and equally. In fact I believe that
your broadcast will endanger sectors of society who are seen as not being
'British' by the benchmark set by those such as the BNP. i.e. white, hetrosexual,
married in a church, etc. When those who are most at risk are attacked by
racists it is all too frequently those of us in the emergency services who
deal with the resultant destruction and injuries.
'When the majority of the public have long forgotton the biased views of your
broadcast those who are far from fair minded will use its broadbast as 'proof'
there is a tide of non white people threatning the life style, ecconomy and
very exsistance of 'British' people. '
Dean Mills
'This programme was highly offensive and irresponsible. It should never have
been broadcast. It was inaccurate and pandered to ill-formed prejudices around
race. The broadcast of such a programme is an act that you should be deeply
ashamed of.
'The programme was full of patent lies that might easily have been copied
from a BNP website. It was therefore no surprise that Channel 4 allowed Nick
Griffin of the BNP to argue for his fascist party to be given a platform,
without once being challenged. Allowing Griffin, who only three months ago
was arrested on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred to be associated
with a Channel 4 programme is highly irresponsible.
'The programme's treatment of British Muslims was also particularly offensive
and illjudged.
'Immigration is a Time Bomb was not a contribution to public debate
about race, immigration and multiculturalism. It was a piece of thinly disguised
populist racism, for which Channel 4 should surely issue an apology, as soon
as possible.
Philip Gilligan