The press watchdog has partially upheld a complaint against a weekly newspaper over a story which claimed asylum seekers in their 20s were lying about their age in order to get places at local schools.
Canterbury City Council member Alex Perkins complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation over the Kentish Gazette’s 16 October story which ran under the headline ‘Refugees spark pupil safety fears’.
The paper reported concerns in the Kent area that unaccompanied male asylum seekers were “lying” about their ages and “being placed in schools” with 11-year-old children.
It stated that men in their 20s were being dishonest about their ages, attributing this assertion to “head teachers in Canterbury”.
Those interviewed by the Gazette said schools had been told to expect pupils “who were 15 or 16 only to find they were clearly 20 or 21”, and that “sometimes there is doubt about where [the pupils] have come from, and even what age they are”.
Cllr Perkins said that the coverage was inaccurate as there was no proof that asylum seekers had been lying about their age, nor had any adults of 20 been placed in schools with pupils aged 11.
He noted that none of the head teachers quoted in the article had confirmed that there were pupils enrolled at their schools who had lied about their ages, nor had they expressed concerns about safety.
Cllr Perkins also said that the headline was discriminatory towards those seeking asylum; that the article had intruded into the time at school of the children mentioned; and that it amounted to the harassment and intimidation of orphaned children legitimately placed in Kent schools.
He claimed the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Harassment), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The newspaper defended its coverage as an accurate report on a matter of major public interest, which had potential implications for the well-being of pupils.
It said that on-the-record comments by local head teachers, quoted in the article, supported the claims made.
The newspaper also drew attention to the fact that, after publication of the story, it had printed a number of readers’ letters opposing the views expressed in its coverage.
IPSO found the comments provided by the teachers did not support the newspaper’s statement, as fact, that “men in their 20s are lying about [their] age and going to schools”; nor did the newspaper subsequently provide any material to corroborate this prominent assertion.
The complaint under Clause 1 was partially upheld on these grounds, and the Gazette was ordered to print the full adjudication on page nine of its newspaper, as well as its website.
The regulator did not find the complaints under Clauses 4, 6 and 12 to be relevant in this case.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
So it begins – politicians using Ipso to score points. An odd ruling for sure.
Report this comment
Classic case of not being able to prove what you claim.Asylum seekers can be seen as easy and “popular” targets for media.
Report this comment
When the Kentish Gazette print this riviting adjudication I’m sure I won’t be the only one thinking Perkins is an oaf. I hope the editor will not be put off printing more hard-hitting stories like this. Public interest? You bet.
Report this comment
It;’s worth reading this adjudication in conjunction with the ‘offending’ story as it is a most curious ruling indeed. If this is to what we are to expect from the brave new Ipso world then we can expect to see a lot more councillors, MPs etc chancing their arm.
Also does anyone else find it curious that Ipso was set up owing to the abuses of the national press, yet the number of upheld adjudications so far is Regional press: 8 National press: 4. And News UK titles are squeaky clean, apparently.
Report this comment
I share some of J Brooks’s concerns but the figures you quote need contextualising – there will always be more adjudications against the regional press, simply because there are far more regional publications than national.
Report this comment
If MH, 70pc galleyproof and J Brooks (the only one with the guts to put his/her name to a comment) are journalists, then I hope I never read their papers, as they do not seem to be too interested in letting the truth get in the way of telling a racist story. The KM conjured up this poisonous claptrap out of whispers and prejudice, for heaven’s sake. The retraction should surely be headlined ‘This newspaper sparked pupil safety fears’.
Report this comment
@70pc galleyproof: for ‘hard hitting stories’, you mean lies? How is it in the public interest to print bare faced lies in order to incite racial hatred? I think that you are the oaf…
Report this comment
’70 PC Galley proof’ – no, Alex Perkins is not an ‘oaf’, he’s a kind, decent and generous man. He happened to find out that several refugee children had been obscenely bullied in local schools as a result of this unsubstantiated article and he wanted to do something about it.
It’s also not about political point scoring as after 23 years as a councillor he’s standing down at the next election.
The article was based on hearsay. Here’s an analogy. If I ‘have heard’ that a local journalist routinely turns up drunk to court duty, can I publish that? Even if someone else ‘has heard’ the same? Even if someone says that another journalist in another area once turned up drunk to court duty but was stopped at the door and turned away? Can you publish your story now?
Is this really the route that you think we should be going down?
Report this comment
As someone who went to school in Canterbury (with Alex Perkins in fact) and who still has strong ties with the city, I whole heartedly support the action taken here to prevent this prejudicial reporting. I always felt that journalists were there to challenge the powers that be and corruption rather than promulgate nasty untruths that clearly promote discrimination against powerless groups. I think the journalists should be ashamed of themselves. More than ever we need people to challenge corruption and these journalist have brought their profession into disrepute in the most shameful way. Well done Alex.
Report this comment
I have always believed everyone is entitled to a view, whether popular or not. I have read your views on me and you are fully entitled to hold them. On reflection, I do feel using the word oaf was unnecessary on my part. I would like to apologise for that. The newspaper defends its coverage of a very serious issue. As long as that is their position I will stand with them.
Report this comment
I have been living in a flat that the housing and council plus social services all new that the place got flooded last year round September/October and I have been living in all the mess from the drains in my flat this long. I have trouble with mental and physical health being left like this with no help not even the phone numbers address to send you or MP to try to find out what & why I am stuck in conditions not suitable for anyone to be living in. I am to late to get any response to this email but I can’t help but think about all the people who are going through the same thing but dew to the way I can only get a email out today to tell people & get something sorted out about the way i have been left living in i hope that its not too late to be heardor hohopefully something will be done about this & bring it to the people attention so other it can be helped before they are like me or dead. I am a disabled person who has been treated as a animal i would like to tell you my story about this matter and I like to know what the mp has to say about it and how to get hold of him. Please let me tell you about the way i have been living in & please contact me ASAP let me know if you or any other person who would like to hear and help people with problems like me who could do with your help.
Spencer Keenan
Report this comment