UK refugee show sparks outrage
LONDON:
Britain's newest reality TV show has been slammed as "insensitive", "voyeuristic" and even "nauseating" for recreating with six Britons the often fatal journeys made by thousands of refugees to the UK.
Bluntly titled Go Back to Where You Came From, the part-documentary, part-reality TV show by Channel 4 follows the group of six, who hold strong views both for and against immigration.
They are divided into two teams, with one dropped into one war-ravaged Raqqa in Syria and the other sent to Mogadishu in Somalia.
Over four episodes which launched on February 3, they "experience some of the most perilous parts of the refugee journeys" according to Channel 4 – although they travel largely in armoured vehicles.
The outspoken views of some participants, as well as the show's format, have been criticised by viewers, charities and some media. Amnesty International UK called it "deeply disappointing" and "sensational".
Participant and chef Dave Marshall, 35, opens the series standing on the cliffs of Dover, calling for immigrants crossing the Channel to be "blown up".
Moments later, political commentator Chloe Dobbs, 24, says that unless immigration is reined in "Britain will be a hellhole full of people wearing burqas".
In the first episode, the six are taken to markets where they meet families, play football with kids and accompany them as they search through litter for scraps.
At one point, when they visit a bombed-out family home in Raqqa, Marshall and two others are invited to stay the night.
"Very kind of you for offering your house to us," replied Marshall, the irony perhaps lost on him.
"The series explores the varied and sometimes polarised opinions in our society in a fresh way," a series spokesperson said.
In upcoming episodes, both groups undertake "challenges", including a boat crossing and trekking through a Libyan desert. There is no winner of the series though.
'Outrageous opinions'
The reality TV genre "exists and its success depends on actually performing shocking opinions", said Myria Georgiou, media and communications professor at the London School of Economics.
"I'm sure the contestants are competing for that shock element - who is going to be more extreme in their opinions," Georgiou told AFP.
Dobbs defended it as a "really fun show that lots of people will tune into".
"More so than just some bog-standard, boring documentary," she said.
"Go Back to Where You Came From" is based on a popular Australian series which first ran in the early 2010s.
At around that time, politicians in Australia were campaigning to "stop the boats" of irregular migrants reaching the country.
A decade later, the same catchphrase has been seized upon by politicians opposing asylum seekers crossing the Channel to reach Britain. The timing of the British version did not surprise Georgiou.
"You have the political leadership, nationally and globally, that have made the most outrageous opinions mainstream," said Georgiou. "We can see that politics have become entertainment and thus it's no surprise that entertainment has become politics."
Some viewers have praised Channel 4 for giving a rare primetime spot to the hot-button immigration debate, with British charity Refugee Council "welcoming" the show's premise.
"Television shows have huge potential to highlight the human stories behind the headlines," Refugee Council CEO Enver Solomon said.
'Humanitarian tragedy'
In one heavily criticised "challenge", the group get into a dinghy in a simulation of the often fatal Channel crossings.
For Dobbs, who has previously said small boats were made out to be "fun" by some refugees, getting into a flimsy vessel in the middle of the night was a turning point.
"It was that moment for me that it really hit me. Gosh, people must be really desperate to get on these boats," she acknowledged.
However, clips of the simulation sparked outrage across the Channel, with French politician Xavier Bertrand calling for the "nauseating" show to be cancelled.
"Hundreds of people have died in the Channel in recent years. This situation is a humanitarian tragedy, not the subject of a game," Bertrand said on X.
The number of asylum seekers arriving in Britain on small boats after crossing the Channel rose to more than 36,800 in 2024, according to official data. It was also the deadliest year for migrant crossings, with at least 76 deaths recorded.
According to Dobbs, the show wanted to do something "different".
"Rather than just talking to a migrant about what the boat crossing they did was like, wouldn't it be even better to simulate it and feel all those emotions for yourself?"
"And if it makes it more entertaining and more intriguing for the audience and means that more people tune in, I mean, that's a win-win," Dobbs added. afp
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Dept Q review: Scandi-noir with British flair
After a long wait, we have a cop thriller that will sweep you up in its twists and turns and keep you guessing about the suspect and criminal motive until the end. British crime TV is at its best in this new Netflix show starring Mathew Goode. You will be reminded that it has indeed been a long time since Line of Duty popped the reeling reveal of the identity of H, the elusive suspect of the series. Some are likening Dept Q to Broadchurch, a classic crime TV where two British detectives investigated the dramatic case of a missing boy in a coastal town. Basically, the new show created by Scott Frank (The Queen's Gambit) and Chandni Lakhani will not disappoint. Based on a Danish novel by Jussi Adler-Olsen, the creator has set the show in Scotland instead of the original location but the feel of the series keeps true to Scandi noir. The eponymous department is a cold-case division, newly thrown together in the dank basement of the Edinburgh police station. Detective Carl Morck has returned from Q hiatus after being shot at a crime scene he was investigating along with his partner James Hardy. Carl cares for no one and nothing now, it seems, but is nearly devoted to checking up on his friend James who is paralysed as result of the shooting. A motley crew is thrown together for Carl to reluctantly work with, it includes a Syrian ex-cop immigrant Akram, Detective Constable Rose Dickson who has worked with Carl before, and lastly James who dives into the case files in his hospital bed. Akram digs up a file on a missing woman who was a successful prosecutor before she vanished from a boat four years ago. Her case is assumed a suicide but Akram notices it is riddled with inconsistencies. Soon you are strapped in for a ride as the ingredients that make up the case of Merrit Lingard fall open and the detectives start following its scent. Dept Q throws many surprises along the way and is punctuated with several scenes that check the boxes of skilful acting, thoughtful camera work and deft directing. Mathew Goode has shed the debonair looks of his notable roles to play Carl Morck. In Dept Q, his hair is not slicked back and he is not gliding in coat tails to woo a princess (Margaret in The Crown) or an aristocrat (Mary Crawley in Downton Abbey). As Carl Morck, he is gaunt, scruffy and searching for redemption. This is just what Goode and detective thriller addicts needed. Yes, he caught your eye being a suave and exciting eligible bachelor but as a bitter and alienated detective haunted by guilt and PTSD, he is magnetic. Carl and partner James Hardy investigate a crime scene and its fallout is something Carl cannot reckon with. A terribly unpleasant person to begin with, cocky and disdainful, Carl is also grappling with guilt and failure. Like all stock detective characters, he resists going for his mandatory psychiatric sessions to work through his PTSD. But viewers, and later Carl himself, will want to see more interaction with Dr Rachel Irving (Kelly Macdonald). Their verbal sparring is on point and she doesn't miss a chance to call him out as he deflects and scoffs at her and what she represents. The other woman in Carl's work life is perhaps even more direct and brutal in her verbal expression. Chief supervisor Moira (Kate Dickie) creates Dept Q to kill two birds with one stone. She needs more funds to run the station and she wants Carl to keep working but out of her hair. The scenes of her exchanges with Carl are a treat each and every time. In fact, the seasoned acting, which is scarce to behold – on Netflix shows at least – enable the viewer to keep refocusing on the show just as she means to whip Carl into refocusing on his case. There are a host of characters and suspects to consider in the case of Merrit's disappearance. As the investigating team traces the steps of Merrit, they uncover insidious people around her that could be the unusual suspects behind her kidnapping or even murder. Merrit's background, from her youth to the peak of her career, is painted as a story within a story. The execution is a triumph for the directors of the show. The numerous flashbacks do not erase your interest and the two story arcs are tightly interwoven. The kidnappers had devised a shocking plan for Merrit and a diabolical torture chamber. The series boasts a strong Scottish cast with the likes of Dickie and Mark Bonner who plays Merrit's dodgy boss as senior legal officer of the Scottish government. However, Alexej Manvelov who plays the role of Akram Salim holds as much onscreen presence with his gravitas. One looks forward to his scenes with Carl, who begrudgingly respects him as Akram's credibility speaks for itself. While Rose sort of brings heart to the team, being young and keen, she notices the good in her colleagues. She also is dealing with PTSD and simultaneously finding her ground as a detective. It's possible, if the series continues, that we will be familiarised with her backstory. The only 'sweet' relationship is hers and James Hardy's as she looks up to him as a mentor. Discreetly, James helps and encourages her. Played by Jamie Sives (you might recall him from GoT), although James is off the premises of the police station and bed bound, he is not at all forgotten in the nine part series. Although he works on the periphery for the team, in the closing scene, he has recovered enough to reach the office and join the department physically. The look on Carl's face as he slowly turns to see his friend arriving is as satisfying as the show is from the get go. It indicates that much is yet left to be explored by these brilliant detectives. The team may well be banished in the old shower quarters of the police building, but their real work is to discover the world out there. The gritty realism of Dept Q is matched by its aesthetic choices that elevate the show beyond the usual crime fare. The camera lingers deliberately on objects, on eyes, on small gestures that might otherwise be missed. Each visual clue feels loaded with meaning, even when the plot doesn't rush to explain it. These details reward patient viewing, especially as the narrative slowly unfurls its deeper preoccupations: justice, guilt, and the unknowability of others. The psychological depth of the show is perhaps most evident in the way it handles trauma. Everyone in Dept Q is carrying something. Carl's PTSD is front and centre, but Rose's anxiety and Akram's cultural displacement are also subtly woven in. None of this is over-explained. Instead, the show allows these tensions to manifest in offhand remarks, in silence, in the ways the team members do or do not show up for each other. Even Merrit herself, in the flashbacks, is revealed to have been haunted by earlier events. A past case she prosecuted, involving a serial offender who was released on appeal, emerges as a possible motive for revenge. As her timeline catches up to the moment of her disappearance, the tension is unbearable. The final two episodes, a crescendo of confrontation and resolution, are masterfully executed without leaning on melodrama. The reveal is chilling not just for who did it—but for how many knew and did nothing.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
India hails trade deal in talks with visiting British FM
NEW DELHI: Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said on Saturday a trade deal with Britain was 'truly a milestone' that will boost bilateral ties as he welcomed his counterpart David Lammy to New Delhi. India and Britain struck a long-delayed free trade agreement last month after negotiations were relaunched in February. Britain has sought to bolster trade ties across the world since it left the European Union under Brexit, a need that became more pressing after the United States unleashed a global tariff blitz that risks causing weaker economic growth. 'The recent conclusion of the India-UK FTA… is truly a milestone which will not only propel our two-way trade and investment but will also have a positive effect on other strategic aspects of our bilateral ties,' Jaishankar said after meeting Lammy, who is on a two-day visit. Lammy says UK, US working to ensure enduring Pakistan, India ceasefire, dialogue 'It would also contribute to the strengthening of supply and value chains,' he said. The accord will slash tariffs on imports of UK goods into India, including whisky, cosmetics and medical devices. In exchange, Britain will cut tariffs on imports of clothes, footwear and food products, including frozen prawns, from India. Britain and India are the sixth- and fifth-largest global economies respectively, with a trade relationship worth around 41 billion pounds ($54.8 billion) and investment supporting more than 600,000 jobs across both countries. They hope the free-trade agreement will increase trade between them by about 25.5 billion pounds, as well as boost the British economy and wages. Talks were relaunched in February after stalling under Britain's previous Conservative administrations. Lammy said before his visit the deal with India was 'just the start of our ambitions'.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Manufactured fears: how bias is hijacking India's public policy
Listen to article The history of South Asia is marked by a series of sweeping transitions — from the final days of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526) to the zenith and decline of the Mughal Empire (1526-1857), and eventually the onset of British colonial rule, which lasted until independence in 1947. Each phase in this complex history unfolded from the ashes of the former, interweaving legacies of power, cultural identity, religious interaction and imperial ambition. What began as fragmented rule matured into imperial dominance, and later succumbed to foreign colonization, culminating in one of the most significant geopolitical reconfigurations of the modern era: the birth of sovereign India and Pakistan. Post-independence, India has witnessed a dramatic transformation. It emerged as a pluralistic democracy, achieved considerable economic success and developed strong institutions. However, despite these national achievements, recent years have seen an unsettling shift. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India appears to be entering an era where public policy is increasingly shaped by a distorted perception of "risk" — a perception rooted in historical animosity and fueled by political ambition. The Reinvention of Risk: A Political Tool In an effort to assert unchallenged political supremacy, Modi has crafted a new, subjective narrative of risk that leans heavily on centuries-old communal tensions — particularly those tied to the Muslim rule between 1206 and 1857. Rather than addressing the multifaceted challenges of a modernising India, Modi's regime appears fixated on defining "risk" through a lens of cultural grievance and identity politics. This redefinition is not objective. It emerges from deep-seated biases and historical resentment, most notably against India's Muslim minority. By presenting Muslims — as well as ideas associated with them — as inherent threats to Indian identity, Modi has orchestrated a national discourse steeped in suspicion and fear. The goal is not merely to govern, but to dominate the public mind and emotional imagination of the people. This approach helps the regime create a fabricated consensus: that certain communities, and by extension certain values and ideas, pose existential threats to national unity and progress. It is a classic tactic in authoritarian playbooks — construct an enemy, shape the narrative and justify sweeping political control in the name of national security. Biased Risk Perception and Public Policy Distortion Public policy in a democracy should be informed by rational assessments of danger, grounded in evidence and proportional response. But when leaders allow personal or ideological biases to guide their perception of risk, the result is a distortion of public priorities. Resources that should be devoted to infrastructure, healthcare, education or regional diplomacy are instead diverted to managing imagined or exaggerated threats. This warped risk perception becomes particularly dangerous when it is disseminated through emotionally charged and repetitive rhetoric. The more fluently an idea is expressed — especially when it carries emotional weight — the more likely the public is to believe in its importance. In this context, Modi's anti-Muslim narratives have become dangerously fluent: echoed across rallies, institutional policies, social media and, most prominently, the Indian mainstream media. Media Amplification and Manufactured Fear A critical cog in this machinery is India's media landscape, which under Modi's tenure has increasingly functioned as an arm of state propaganda. Stories of imagined or exaggerated risks tied to Muslims or Pakistan are given disproportionate coverage. Even when fabricated or misleading, these stories generate public panic and resentment, creating a loop of fear that sustains itself. The more these stories are repeated, the more they dominate public consciousness. Eventually, they become self-fulfilling prophecies: the fear becomes the justification for more authoritarian policies. Those who challenge the narrative — who argue that the risks are overstated or manufactured -— are treated with suspicion, sometimes branded as traitors or "anti-national". This vicious cycle results in a public policy environment where actual national challenges — such as poverty, unemployment, climate change, education reform and regional peace — are relegated to the background. A fictitious war against "Kashmiris" "Muslims (inside)" and "Pakistan" is waged in headlines and policies, allowing the regime to deflect accountability and consolidate power. A Call for Reset: Reclaiming Public Purpose India stands today at a crossroads. While its economic and technological strides should position, it is increasingly being seen as a nation consumed by its internal divisions and insecurities. It is time for India's policymakers and citizens alike to reclaim their priorities. This requires recognising that the path to greatness does not lie in exclusion, hate or historical score-settling. It lies in inclusion, cooperation and evidence-based governance. It requires accepting that the obsession with defining and amplifying subjective risks only serves to distract from the real tasks of nation-building. Instead of letting fear define its future, India must now embrace the promise of its pluralistic past and its shared future with its neighbours. Conclusion It's time we befriended once again — as neighbours, as partners and as people with intertwined histories and shared destinies. We must explore mutual benefits — in trade, education, cultural exchange and regional peace. We must grow out of the subjective definition of risk — and replace it with a rational, inclusive vision of national security. We must ensure harmonious regional stability — by placing people's welfare, peace and prosperity at the heart of public policy. India's greatness lies not in stoking the embers of its past, but in lighting the path to a more inclusive, stable and forward-looking future.
