Complaint
This edition included an interview with a hotel owner who said he had been approached by the Government to house asylum seekers. A listener complained there was insufficient challenge to his views and the sequence lacked impartiality. The ECU considered whether the article met the relevant standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The ECU considered the guest was entitled to set out his account of events, but in the absence of any significant challenge, the sense was given that he was stating facts rather than making claims which might have been contested. It was not made clear the approaches he described dated from 2022, under a previous Government. No reference was made to the position of the 91¸£ÀûÉç Office, notably in relation to the claim that its proposals would have cost the taxpayer very large sums of money on a rolling contract over many years. On impartiality, the introduction gave the impression that the item’s focus would be on the process by which hotels were booked by the Government for asylum seekers, whereas in fact the guest spoke at some length about his own views on immigration – again, without meaningful challenge. His connection to Nigel Farage was not revealed by the programme but by his own comments, and listeners were not informed about the controversy attaching to some of his earlier statements.
Upheld
Further action
The article was discussed with the presenter and production team.