Illegal immigration

There was a very annoying early 2-way this morning between the Today presenter (Jim N, I think) and the BBC political correspondent, Norman Smith. The subject was the evidence given yesterday about the number of illegal immigrants in Britain.

As ever Smith's analysis was concerned almost entirely with the embarrassment caused to government, and was couched in the usual language of barely restrained exasperation; you know the kind of thing - how amazing it was that David Roberts and the Home Office didn't know how many illegals were here, and weren't chasing around after them.

Norman should go Here to find one of his colleagues giving an excellent and balanced precis of the problem. And the BBC should consider using their Home Affairs specialists more and their ubiquitous political correspondents a bit less. More information please, less bloody grand-standing.

Comments

[Philip Ritchie]

Couldn't agree more. There must be a competition at the BBC to see who can be the most sensationalist in their reporting. The criteria for a story now seems to be how much damage can this do to the PM or how can I present it in that light? The bar has been raised by Nick Robinson leaving Martha Carney and Nick Smith desperately trying to catch up. They have managed to reduce important topics to trivia and at times objectivity has flown out of the window. It's easy to forget how good Andy Marr, John Sergeant and John Cole were. How can we tell when a story has real political significance if they are all presented as the death rattle of the PM? I've taken to double checking everything they say because of the hyperboli. Have they learnt nothing from Hutton or is this the payback?

[Left Hook]

And guess what: if the Home Office was to take the measures which would be required to count the illegals, and then the draconian actions associated with mass forced expulsions, the BBC would be the first to complain (or maybe the Indy, or the Guardian). The difference is that if this were to the case, they would be right to complain, whereas at the moment, they are wrong.

[Bernard Powell Leicestershire]

Well said DavidI am increasingly exasperated by BBc's inability to distinguish news(i.e. straight information) and interpretation(i.e. opinion/leading). Their Political(Gossip) Editor is particularly bad.It insults the intelligence.The claustrophobic 'Westminster'view of important subjects -such as immigration-prevents viewers from being properly informed.For example, the news gives us no international(or even extra-Westminster)perspective on the problem.Yet when I watch Fox/CNN I discover that the USA is not without its problems!
It would be useful sometime to analyse news reporting to discover theproportion of straight information to interpretation/opinion/gossip.
Of course,if you want a send-up,re-run Dunkirk through the eyes of 'breaking news'-we'd never have survived it!

[Joy Springreen]

John Reids first big job now he's back from Iraq and Afghanistan is sorting out the stowaway foreigners, especially with the sacking case of his predecessor.
tut-tut. naughty-naughty. Oh no, that was Prescott.
Charles Clarke, thats the fella. Honestly, i dont know, they are really coming and going with this Blair government these days. Who knows whose in and what time and for how long. Dont change the channel.

[Martin Hoscik]

Sorry David but the irony quota of someone writing in a paper owned by Murdoch and demanding "balanced precis" is just too much to go unremarked.

[John Cronin]

Do you believe that the U.K. ought to have an immigration service?

[Inna]

Funny thing about Murdoch--I never noticed him interfering with editorial content so long as one (and one only) condition was satisfied: the publication made money.

Regards,

Inna

[RobSlave]

I hate the term 'illegals'. It's so divisive.
I'd like to know how many of the asylum "illegals" feel they have valid claims to stay in Britain, have failed to win their cases with the home office, but who would probably win in the European courts. Unfortunately you're looking at some €100,000 to achieve that properly. So overstay and work without the proper paperwork? I think a lot of people would, and I also think a lot of people would want the BBC in particular to talk about this, and to go into some of the more technical economic arguments that reside behind the debate of illegal workers.
Also, I've never seen a program that tries to follow asylum seekers when they are chucked out of Britain: the threats, the isolation, the sense of failure, the culture shock and even the love they may still feel for Britain.
Hang on, I think there might be a real scandal there...

I was really deflated to see that even Channel 4 led with the story of the 5 'illegal cleaners.' The immigrant stories are getting more and more sensationalist and are involving fewer and fewer actual people.

I got to visit parliament last week for my job, and i can see just how easy it is to get seduced by the gossip that surrounds the place. Oddly it reminded me of living in halls of residence, where you almost totally forget the outside world and concentrate entirely on who's sleeping with who and who stole your milk.

[Martin Hoscik]

Inna

You ought to read Full Disclosure by Andrew Neil.

[Sy]

Inna
Murdoch turned the Sun from a Labour paper to a Tory one overnight when he bought it. Also, I've read that every single one of his 100+ publications worldwide supported the Iraq war. Coincidence?

[Seb Carroll]

Couldn't agree more with the person who said 'couldn't agree more'. I'm sick and tired of Nick Robinson the WANnabe kingmaKER grandstanding for us, and all of his ilk.