The ECU found the item contained two material inaccuracies.  One was the reporter’s reference to seeing security guards “drag” asylum-seekers into the building.  While the ECU accepted that the word had been intended in a metaphorical sense, its emphatic repetition would have been likely to give viewers the impression that physical force had been used, whereas it was clear from contemporaneous evidence that it had not.  The other was a statement by an interviewee which gave the impression that residents of the hotel were receiving financial support amounting to £300 per month.  The ECU understood from other sources that this figure did not reflect what the average asylum-seeker resident in the hotel could expect to receive, and the inaccuracy was compounded because viewers would have taken the interviewee to be speaking as a resident of the hotel with first-hand knowledge of the situation, whereas he was a visitor (though himself an asylum-seeker accommodated elsewhere).  This aspect of the complaint was upheld.

In relation to fairness to contributors, relevant Guidelines say “Our commitment to fairness is normally achieved by ensuring that people provide ‘informed consent’ before they participate. ‘Informed consent’ means that contributors should be in possession of the knowledge that is necessary for a reasoned decision to take part”.  In the ECU’s judgment it was clear that some of the contributors, and possible that all of them, had insufficient grasp of English to be in a position to make a reasoned decision to take part without prior notice.  This aspect of the complaint was upheld.

In relation to impartiality, the ECU noted that neither the reporter nor the other participants had expressed a view on any controversial aspect of the debate about asylum-seekers and their treatment, so this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

Partly Upheld