The headline was based on an interview with Jim Gamble, a former police officer who carried out the official Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review into the case.  Mr Gamble was asked about the concept of “adultification”, described in a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation as a point when “notions of innocence and vulnerability are not afforded to certain children…determined by people and institutions who hold power over them. When adultification occurs outside of the home it is always founded within discrimination and bias”.  In the interview Mr Gamble said of the Child Q case: “From all of the information I had, I believe, whether deliberate or not, racism is likely to have played a part. I also believe that adultification is part of that. And when colleagues, former colleagues say to me I accept adultification but I don’t accept the racism, that has caused me to reflect because adultification is not how a person looks, it’s how you perceive them when you look at them, and it’s part of racism. And I believe that young black children are in many cases treated as if they are older”.

The ECU did not agree the headline misrepresented Mr Gamble.  Even though he used the word “likely” in relation to the role of racism, it was clear from his remarks as a whole that he did regard racism as a central element in the incident, because he considered that adultification had occurred, and that, in this context, it was “part of racism”.
Not Upheld