The presenter, Amol Rajan, spoke in the context of the Government’s plan to send some asylum applicants to Rwanda and the fact a legal challenge had prevented the first proposed flight from leaving.  In an introduction to an interview with David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr Rajan said

“Flight of fancy”, “Grounded”, “Rwandan Air Farce”.  Clichés and puns already abound in the discussion of why last night’s flight to Kigali didn’t happen.  At heart, this is a story about thousands of the most terrified people in the world, many who have suffered immense trauma, even before taking the kind of risk in crossing the Channel that few of us could ever imagine.  It’s also about what makes a 21st century immigration policy effective, what it can and should look like in an era where mass migrations are becoming more, rather than less common.  Let’s interrogate the second of those issues.

The ECU considered it was clear Mr Rajan was offering a brief description of the kind of people who might be affected by the Government’s proposal.  It did not share the complainant’s impression  that it was “absurd to describe them as among the most terrified when they decide to seek a better life in the UK than they believe is on offer in France”.  The ECU understood Mr Rajan to be referring to the trauma some people may have faced in their homeland which led them to seek asylum, or the fear they experienced in making the journey across the Channel, often in small boats run by organised crime gangs.

Not all of those seeking asylum necessarily faced such conditions and the ECU accepted Mr Rajan could have included this in his introduction.  However, he was reflecting the fact many of those seeking asylum once they arrived in the UK had faced dangerous and traumatic conditions in the course of their journey.  His language was therefore not “emotive or lacking in objectivity” as the complainant suggested.
Not Upheld