Has Channel 4 immigration show branded toxic changed anyone's mind?
"In 10 years' time, Britain is going to be full of people wearing burqas.
"Islam will have taken over."
Chloe Dobbs' first words on Channel 4 reality show Go Back To Where You Came From didn't leave much room for doubt.
The 24-year-old YouTuber and conservative political commentator from Cornwall knows her opinions were "controversial".
So was the programme. Some charities accused it of platforming "toxic views" and giving a distorted idea of what refugees really go through.
But after being thrown in with five other Brits - all with differing views on immigration - has it altered anyone's thinking?
In the four-part series, filmed in May and June 2024, participants were split into two groups - one travelling from Syria, one from Somalia.
They spent weeks, accompanied by security teams, following the same routes refugees from Somalia and Syria use to reach the UK.
Recent figures from the government suggest that more than 5,000 Syrians applied for asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2024, with 940 applications from Somalians.
In the same time period, 3,385 people arriving from Syria came on small boats - the third most common nationality to come to the UK this way.
The charity Freedom From Torture criticised the show as "dehumanising and downright dangerous".
It said genuine refugees would not have the same resources and the programme could "never truly convey the unpredictability and the danger of what that journey actually feels like".
Chloe travelled back to the UK from Syria, where the UN estimates 14 million people were forced to flee their homes after the outbreak of civil war in 2011.
In the series, she was seen clashing with fellow Brit Bushra Shaikh, who had a more sympathetic attitude towards migrants and refugees.
Since returning to the UK Chloe says she's able to see the crisis more from her point of view.
"Purgatory is the word that I would use to describe the situation that so many people are in," says Chloe, having now seen the crisis close-up.
"We saw a lot of really heartbreaking stuff."
Meanwhile, Mathilda Mallinson travelled to Somalia.
The 29-year-old journalist from London has previous experience working in refugee camps and tells Newsbeat she "wasn't expecting to have my views on immigration drastically changed".
But by spending so much time with the other participants, she says she has learned to be more understanding of different points of view.
"I really don't think that polarised, heated, angry debate gets anyone closer to the middle ground," she says.
"A key part of the journey for me was just listening to the reasons that people feel different ways.
"I was never going to be the person who helped them see... that was going to come from meeting refugees themselves."
Both Chloe and Mathilda agree that more needs to be done to build a better understanding of the migrant crisis in the UK.
"The bit that the media focuses on generally is the crossing from France to Britain," says Chloe.
"It's very easy to think, if you just watch the news in the UK, that all of the displaced people in the world, they're all coming to Britain.
"When actually there are millions and millions of people elsewhere in the world."
Mathilda agrees, saying she was taken aback by the scale of the problem away from Europe, which she rarely sees reported.
"It was so overwhelming to see the scale of the displacement crisis," she says of when they visited Dadaab in Kenya, formerly the world's largest refugee camp.
"This is what we need to see more of in our storytelling in our coverage of the refugee crisis, because it really helps to put into proportion what we are dealing with in the UK and and in Europe."
'I would jump on the boat' says ex anti-immigration campaigner
'I replicated a refugee's journey for a TV show'
How many people cross the Channel in small boats?
Now back in the UK, Chloe says she received "hateful messages" when the show aired but her experience has definitely changed her views "on a lot of things".
She says she hasn't done a "full 180" from where she started and still advocates for "very strong vetting processes" for migrants who want to come to the UK legally.
But, she says: "I started to really see these people, rather than just as criminals, as human beings who are in absolutely heartbreaking situation."
"It definitely gave me a heck of a lot more empathy for what people are going through."
Channel 4 has been approached for comment on criticisms of the show.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Held at gunpoint: BBC team detained by Israeli forces in southern Syria
On the morning of 9 May, I was part of a BBC Arabic team which left the Syrian capital, Damascus, for the southern province of Deraa. From there we planned to go to the frontier with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. We wanted to get close to the Syrian territory that has been seized by the Israeli military since December, when Israel's prime minister said it was taking control indefinitely of a demilitarised buffer zone and neighbouring areas following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. We were a team of seven - myself (a British citizen), two Iraqi BBC staff, and four Syrians - three freelancers and one BBC cameraman. Israel says it struck near Syria palace over violence in Druze areas First Druze crossing in 50 years as Israel courts allies in Syria Israeli strikes in Syria a challenge to Turkey We were filming near one of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) observation posts, close to the town of al-Rafeed, when an official from the UN told us that the Israeli side had inquired about our identity and had been informed that we were a BBC crew. We next drove north towards Quneitra city, which has been located inside the buffer zone since a 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel, which captured the Golan during the 1967 Middle East war. About 200m (660ft) away from the city, an unguarded checkpoint blocked the road. To the side of the checkpoint we spotted Merkava tanks, one of which was flying an Israeli flag. From a nearby tower, two Israeli soldiers were watching us - one of them through binoculars - and my colleague held his BBC ID up for them to see. The BBC has complained to the Israeli military about what happened next to my team, but it has not yet received a response. A minute after we started filming in the area, a white car approached from the other side of the checkpoint. Four Israeli soldiers got out of the car and surrounded us. They pointed their rifles at our heads and ordered us to place the camera on the side of the road. I tried to explain that we were a BBC crew, but things escalated unexpectedly quickly. I was able to send a message to my BBC colleagues in London saying that we had been stopped by the Israeli military before our phones and all equipment were confiscated, more Israeli soldiers arrived in a Humvee military vehicle, and our car was thoroughly searched. The soldiers escorted us through a barrier into the city of Quneitra and stopped at the crossing point that separates Quneitra from the occupied Golan. There, the soldiers began reviewing the footage as we sat in our car, while one pointed his rifle at my head from metres away. After more than two hours, one of the soldiers asked me to step out of the car and speak on a mobile phone. I didn't know who the person on the line was. He spoke broken Arabic. He asked why we were filming Israeli military positions. I told him I was a British BBC journalist and explained to him the nature of our work. I returned to my car, and the rifle was again aimed at my head. After another hour of waiting, one more vehicle arrived. A group of security personnel got out of the car carrying blindfolds and plastic zip ties and asked me to step out first. The lead officer, who spoke fluent Palestinian Arabic dialect, took me by the hand towards one of the rooms at the crossing point which were previously used by the Syrian army. The floor was strewn with broken glass and rubbish. He told me that they would treat me differently - no handcuffs, nor blindfold - unlike the rest of my team. I was in shock. I asked why they were doing this when they knew we were a BBC crew. He said he wanted to help get us out quickly and that we had to comply with their instructions. Moments later, another officer entered and told me to take off all my clothes except my underwear. I initially refused, but they insisted, and threatened me, so I complied. He inspected even inside my underwear, both front and back, searched my clothes, then told me to put them back on and started interrogating me - including personal questions about my children and their ages. When they eventually let me out of the room, I witnessed the horrific scene of my team members, tied up and blindfolded. I pleaded to the officer to release them, and he promised to do so after the interrogations. They were taken one by one to the same room for strip search and questioning. They returned with their hands still bound but not blindfolded. The team's interrogation lasted more than two hours, during which all our phones and laptops were examined, and many photos - including personal ones - were deleted. The officer threatened us with worse consequences if we approached the frontier from the Syrian side again, and said that they know everything about us and would track us down if any hidden or un-deleted photo was ever published. About seven hours after our detention - it was past 21:00 - we were taken by two vehicles, one in front of our car and the other behind us, to a rural area about 2km (1.2 miles) outside Quneitra. There, the vehicles stopped and a bag containing our phones was thrown towards us before the vehicles left. Lost in the dark with no signal, no internet and no idea where we were, we kept driving until we reached a small village. A group of children pointed us to the highway, warning that a wrong turn could draw Israeli fire. Ten tense minutes later, we found the road. Forty-five minutes after that, we were in Damascus. Israel demands complete demilitarisation of southern Syria 'We just need peace': BBC speaks to Syrians watching Israel's incursion Israel seizes Golan buffer zone after Syrian troops leave positions
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Striking images showing environmental destruction aim to ‘inspire action'
Tree-covered mountains rise behind a pile of trash, children run through the orange haze of a dust storm, and a billboard standing on parched earth indicates where the seashore used to be before desertification took hold. These striking images, exhibited as part of the Right Here, Right Now Global Climate Summit, show the devastating effects of climate change. The summit, held at the University of Oxford in the UK and supported by UN Human Rights (OHCHR), aims to reframe climate change as a human rights crisis and spotlight climate solutions. It works with everyone from policymakers to artists to get the message across. 'Photographers document the human rights impacts of climate change, helping to inform the public and hold governments and businesses accountable,' said Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for the OHCHR, via email. 'The Right Here, Right Now Global Climate Summit shows the power of collective action — uniting storytellers, scientists, indigenous leaders, and others to advance climate solutions rooted in human rights.' Coinciding with World Environment Day on June 5, the exhibition — titled 'Photography 4 Humanity: A Lens on Climate Justice' — features the work of 31 photographers from across the globe, all documenting the effects of global warming and environmental pollution on their own communities. Climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations around the world. Despite emitting far fewer greenhouse gases, low-income nations are suffering the most from extreme weather events and have fewer resources to adapt or recover. Photographs at the exhibition show the effects of desertification, flooding and plastic pollution. A black and white image shows the ruins of a house in West Bengal, India, sloping towards the Ganges River, with the owner sitting alongside. Riverbank erosion is degrading the environment and displacing communities in the area. Photographer Masood Sarwer said in a press release that the photo depicts the 'slow violence' of climate change: 'These are not sudden disasters, but slow-moving, relentless ones — shaping a new category of environmental refugees.' Another photo, taken by Aung Chan Thar, shows children fishing for trash in Inle Lake, Myanmar. The lake was once a pristine natural wonder but now faces the growing threat of plastic pollution. 'This image of children cleaning the water symbolizes the importance of education and collective action in preserving our environment for a sustainable future,' he said. Organizers hope that the exhibition will help to humanize the climate crisis. 'Our mission is to inspire new perspectives through photography,' said Pauline Benthede, global vice president of artistic direction and exhibitions at Fotografiska, the museum of photography, art and culture that is curating the exhibition at the summit. 'It draws attention to the human rights issue at the heart of global warming, which affects both the world's landscapes and the people that live within them.' 'Photography is the most influential and inclusive art form of our times and has the power to foster understanding and inspire action,' she added.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
US President Donald Trump has resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions. The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Mr Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. 'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution. Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.
