News Watch: Post-Brexit trade deals, Gérard Depardieu convicted, Starmer's immigration speech
45:35 Share

She's made up her mind, if pretty smart. Learned to budget responsibly right from the start. She spends a little less, puts more into savings. Keeps her blood pressure low when credit score raises. She's gotten debt right out of her life. She tracks her cash flow on a spreadsheet at night. Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank. Brilliantly boring since 1865.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com slash special offer.

Welcome back. It's series six of MediaStorm. Can you believe it? Six. Series six. How far we've come. I know. And we have huge news. Matilda got a fringe.

Can you believe it, guys? Oh, that news. Yeah, that news. You did think I was pregnant. I was like, I messaged Helena like, I've got something I need, I was going to wait to tell you in person. Yeah, I'm sorry, but like when any 30-year-old woman messages me that, I obviously think they're pregnant. Yeah, it happened like three times. I was like, no, I've made an equally important life decision. And got a fringe. When you said we have huge news, I thought you were going to be like...

Oh, we've got a live show next week. Okay, but we also have a live show next week. It's on Tuesday. Oh, my God. It's on Tuesday, the 20th of May. We're really excited. A little bit nervous. It's actually next Tuesday. It's actually next Tuesday. It's really sprung up on us. But honestly, we would love to see you there. Please buy a ticket. The ticket link is in the show notes. We have Natasha Devon from LBC. We have Milo Edwards, who is a very funny comedian.

And we have a great premise for the show. And there's audience interaction. We want to hear your questions. We want to hear your thoughts. We want to hear your opinions. So, yeah.

And please, as ever, if you can, please join our Patreon. For less than a cup of coffee a month, you can support the work that me and Helena do here at MediaStorm. It's really what we rely on, especially to pay our guests. All of our Patreon funds this season will be going to pay people from underrepresented communities with lived experience to share their expertise with us. Okay, let's kick off. What do we want to talk about?

Yeah, before we actually get into the Newswatch, I wanted to have a little discussion with you, Helena, and with our listeners about whether or not we should be using the term mainstream media, which we use a lot at MediaStorm. I think it's like literally in our show description. Okay, interesting. Tell me why you want to bring this discussion up. I was actually in Germany and was chatting to some listeners in Germany and they were like,

Is it different in the UK or does the term mainstream media have the same connotations that it has here in Germany? You know, sort of like...

fake news conspiracy theorists trying to drag down the MSM mainstream media and I was like yeah no to be honest it does have the same connotations here and then that got into this we got into this discussion because then they were like well you know do you think you should be using that term because it's quite triggering for people it might turn people off your message because they might think that you're sort of leaning into that conspiracy theory brand okay yeah I get that point I really do but

My question is like, what should we use instead? So in this discussion, I was asked, why don't you just say media? You know, why don't you just say this is a problem in the media? I'm like, yes, we could do that. But what that fails to communicate is that there is a power structure here. There is a culture of gatekeeping. Exactly. There are establishments which dominate the narrative in our media and.

And I want to be able to use a term that reflects that. We have to be able to... Explain who we're talking about. Yeah. These media organisations, they actually have coined a term to refer to themselves, which is legacy media. Right? The legacy media. But I'm just like...

You know what? If you coin that term, then you are acknowledging that this establishment of the media, the mainstream media, it does exist. You're acknowledging that there is a collective body here that we can legitimately criticize as a unit for their collective culture.

OK, so maybe we need to ask our listeners, could you help us out with a new term maybe to use instead of mainstream media, instead of legacy media? Or if you think that one of those is fitting, let us know. You can email in mediastormpodcast at gmail.com or you can follow us at MediaStormPod, Instagram, TikTok, Blue Sky, all of those. And yeah, write in and let us know.

Okay, let's get into the first Newswatch of Series 6. Here's what's coming up on today's show. I'm going to start with the hypocritical reaction to a trade deal made with India. And then I'm going to take on the media storm surrounding the UK-US trade deal. That is an uncharacteristic amount of trade for the media storm.

But don't worry, it's not just trade. Then I'll be hopping across the channel to events in France and the conviction of Gerard Depardieu. Then, of course, I have a lot to say about Keir Starmer's

immigration policies here in the UK. And we'll end with eyes on Palestine. We risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together. Literally taking a quote from the Rivers of Blood speech which Enoch Powell delivered. One of the most important trade deals in the history both of the United States and the United Kingdom. This deal is truly appalling and I think what you'll see is Starmer's ratings in the polls plummet.

Welcome to Media Storms Newswatch, helping you get your head around the headlines. I'm Helena Wadia. And I'm Matilda Mallinson. This week's Media Storms. Trade deals. Gerard Depardieu convicted. Starmer goes all Enoch Powell. Successive British governments have been talking up the economic promise of a post-Brexit Britain for years. The promise of a UK that is free to strike independent trade deals across the globe.

What's a trade deal that's been on the table for years but has constantly been halted by slow and often difficult negotiations? A trade deal with India. So this agreement was finalised last week after more than three years of negotiations under successive governments.

This government said that this landmark deal would add £4.8 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. The idea of free trade deals with other countries, especially India, has long been touted as one of the biggest prizes of Brexit. So how do you think Nigel Farage, the man who really made Brexit happen on the foundation of the promise of national sovereignty, reacted to this trade deal? Thrilled? Happy?

Excited? No, he accused Keir Starmer of betraying Britain. Oh, wow. Strong language. Explain. I was a bit confused, too, until I remembered that the other foundation Farage built Brexit on was racism and fear. So here are some of the details of the trade deal that has been struck with India. 90% on tariffs on British goods will be reduced or eliminated over time, with the biggest headline win being on whiskey and gin.

British firms will now be able to compete for Indian government contracts. This was something that, you know, people were saying, oh, this unlocks really huge new business opportunities for us. There's a commitment to reduce tariffs on 99% of Indian exports to Britain, including removing import duties on textiles, which is a key industry for India.

And under the new trade deal, Indian nationals temporarily posted to the UK for work will not have to pay national insurance, which is typically about 8% of most employees' wages, for the first three years of their stay. Instead, they'll continue paying the Indian equivalent of Social Security, and the same will apply to British workers sent to India.

So on paper, this is a straightforward move to avoid double taxation, which is something that trade experts and multinational firms are behind. Right. But what was the narrative that was put out by Farage and the Reform Party?

that Keir Starmer is betraying British workers in favour of Indian workers who will pay no national insurance. It's too easy. A tweet from the Reform Party said the result of this deal will be more mass immigration, more pressure on the NHS and more pressure on housing.

Sorry, I'm speechless. She's too stunned to speak. But by the way, it wasn't just reform slash Farage that jumped on this. Leader of the opposition, the Tories, Kemi Badenoch, also went on the offensive, describing the deal as unfair to British taxpayers. And she called the deal, get ready, your favourite line, a system of two tier tax evasion.

There it is. There it is. Anyway, is this even like a new thing, this concept of workers who are here on short-term secondments not having to pay national insurance for like the short period that they're here? Not at all. Not new. And here is where the media played right into the right hands.

The media failed to report on the fact that this move to avoid double taxation is a standard tax agreement in trade deals and that the UK already has similar agreements with over 50 countries. Like that is crucial context. In fact, it's so standard that it has a name. It's called the Double Contributions Convention. And India already has similar deals with a number of countries, including Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, France, etc.,

Also, the national insurance exemption only applies to company transfers between two nations. So that means that it doesn't apply to like Indian nationals applying for UK jobs. It doesn't grant access to UK benefits. It doesn't change immigration rules.

And this rule will only apply to a small number of workers. And so it will cost the UK Treasury like relatively very, very little. These papers have probably made more money from the clickbait than it's going to cost the entire economy. Literally. And this is truly an example of the media reporting on made up outrage.

And you know it's made up outrage when even some right-wing commentators have pointed out that Beignoc and Farage are like talking out of their arses. So Daniel Hannan, who is a member of the Conservative Party, he's in the House of Lords. He's written for the Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun. So like by all intents and purposes, we can call this man on the right.

He even called out the hypocrisy. He tweeted, it is sad to see people who are talking up an India free trade agreement as a Brexit benefit now attacking it because it was signed by Labour. What happened to putting the national interest first? I can respect that. Yeah, I can also respect that. And he also posted an iNews article which countered Faraj and Badenoch's claims with facts.

And he wrote, here's a balanced and factual summary of the national insurance deal. You can agree or disagree, but the debate here bears absolutely no relation to what has in fact been agreed. And it's so incredibly frustrating to witness the media giving equal weight to both the deal and the false criticism of the deal. Like even The Guardian reported on the criticisms from Farage and Badenock by saying the details of the deal has caused a row.

By naming it as a row, rather than describing it as false outrage and then presenting the facts, it's like legitimising that criticism and catapulting it into the mainstream. And it's taking government time. It's making a policy priority out of something that is just a distraction. Right. And by describing the Double Contributions Convention as a compromise that the UK's had to make in order to secure this deal, rather than like a pretty standard tax agreement...

They're instantly portraying it in a negative light and describing it as if it's something major that the UK had to compromise on and give up in order to secure this deal. And really, like, it's just basic racism. It's just basic xenophobia. That's what it is. Lots of people will believe that UK workers are being betrayed by this deal. What's going to happen? Racism towards Indian people or British Asians is only going to increase.

That was cheery. Next up, another post-Brexit trade deal. This time with the US. Which means that it's not going to have the same sort of like racist backlash I imagine that the India one did. Let's find out. Last week we were told that Starmer had secured a landmark economic deal with Trump. The left were pretty happy because success for Starmer, success for Labour. The right were pretty happy because it validated Brexit.

And so as a result, the reporting across the spectrum was pretty much entirely surface level. But just before the deal was announced, there was a word of warning on Twitter by Carol Cadwalader, the investigative journalist. She wrote, Dear UK media, please, please, please do not cheerlead any deal that involves the UK kowtowing to demands from US tech companies.

This is a potential disaster for Britain on multiple levels, including and especially national security. Despite this warning, much of the UK followed the line of the government's own press release when reporting this deal. Landmark economic deal with the United States saved thousands of jobs for British car makers and steel industry. Yeah, the understanding of the deal based on the press is that like Starmer and Trump have really pulled this out of the bag and it's the ultimate validation of Brexit. Yeah.

A quick look at the front pages the day after. The Times highlights the word historic used by both Starmer and Trump to describe the agreement. The Independent said the UK won the global race to shake off the worst Trump trade tariffs. Both the Daily Mail and The Sun noted that Trump said the deal was only possible because of Brexit. The Financial Times was a rare example that didn't echo government PR in its headlines and actually went into depth.

The thing is, there's actually very little detail about this deal that we know. It hasn't been finalised yet on paper. So in lieu of actual information, Starmer has been allowed to write his own headlines. However, Carol Cadwallader, that investigative journalist I mentioned, she expressed deep concern on her sub stack, which I can recommend, about the lack of detail and in one area in particular, tact.

And this is because the UK's ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson, announced very vaguely that there was going to be some sort of exciting tech partnership. So Carol Cadwallader wrote, why on earth would the UK government want to get into any sort of relationship with Silicon Valley companies right now? Most have shown themselves to be intrinsically aligned with and in hock to an authoritarian president. In meshing ourselves in any deeper relationship than we already have,

is a profound threat to our national security and a future potential blackmail tool. And also, I think some quite important context for listeners is that Carol Cadwalader was the investigative reporter at The Guardian who broke the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal. And this was about consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica and Facebook pairing up to non-consensually sell the personal data of millions of users for targeted products.

political advertising. And it seemed to have played a major role in Trump's election in 2016. Exactly. So she's pretty nervous about tech and political partnerships for good reason. And also she has a point like when else would we think it was a good idea to sign a tech partnership with a pretty authoritarian leader who not only brags about putting his country first always, but has quite clearly bought like the country's tech

under his thumb. Yeah. Also, do we know anything at all about this tech agreement with the US? No, not yet. Not officially. But Carol Cadwalader has like joined the dots and indicated that they all point to one tech company in particular. And this is a company called Palantir. Okay, wait, why do I know that name? Because Palantir is the data defense company basically underpinning Trump's mass deportations. No, Kirsten. I know.

Palantir is being paid a billion dollars by Trump to build a database for ICE to track and deport migrants. It was founded by Peter Thiel, who you might also have heard of. I feel like you mentioned him on MediaStorm once. I did, yeah. He's an old friend of Elon Musk's. They founded PayPal together. He, like Elon Musk, also grew up in apartheid South Africa, where he is reported to have had pretty bad

pro-apartheid views. Now he's in the White House helping Trump to mass deport migrants. And guess who used to work for him as a corporate lobbyist for Palantir? Who? The UK's ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson. Oh my God. And he's the guy who announces tech

partnership. And when Keir Starmer went to Washington in February to meet Trump, he had just one other meeting with Palantir. Oh my gosh. And guess who set it up? The ambassador? Lord Mandelson. So quick summary, Mandelson announced an exciting new tech partnership as part of the trade deal.

He used to work from Palantir. He organized a meeting for them with Keir Starmer and they are the company getting rich off migrant surveillance and illegal deportations in the US. In a nutshell. Great. So any mention of this in the mainstream media? Nope. I learned all of this from Carol Cadwallader's personal sub stack. And in it, she denigrates the media's unquestioning integrity.

coverage of the trade deal. She said the only commentator worth reading was the coverage from Nobel Prize winning US economist Joseph Stiglitz who said in a Sky interview that the deal is not worth the paper it's written in. He said... I wouldn't...

view it as a great achievement. In fact, I would view it as playing into Trump's strategy. His strategy is divide and conquer, go after the weakest countries and, you know, sort of put the stronger countries in the back.

And so after Brexit, I guess we are one of those weak countries, divide and conquer. And to top it all off, the BBC's Laura Kunzberg actually featured the head of UK Palantir on its Sunday morning show discussing the trade deal. But he was not there as like the head of Palantir to answer questions about Palantir's involvement in the deal. He was just there as like a legitimate political commentator to give his opinion.

opinion on the deal. This is a company that is literally lobbying for UK government business that is involved in deportations that US courts have deemed illegal. And Kunzberg, the BBC journalist, she even knew that this guy, the head of UK Palantir, was in the White House during the trade talks. This is actually super controversial. But she doesn't point it out as controversial. She just sort of throws it in as an anecdote to bulk up his authority as her guest speaker.

before then asking his opinion of the deal. Oh, and let me guess what his opinion of the deal is, that it's really great? It's really great, but it doesn't quite go far enough in tech. It needs more tech partnership. Oh, what a surprise. Listen to the clip. But you were actually there, I understand, with the Trump-Starmer big first talks in February. You were there in D.C. in the White House, I think. Are you worried in the way that Joseph is about what Trump's doing and the impact on the economy? Well, I think the trade deal that was signed this week was a good first step.

But it does only cover most industrial goods, and that is far from being...

the majority of our combined US-UK economies. So I think there's a lot more still to go. One thing that I found very promising was in the Oval Office itself, you'll have seen Trump and Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador, talking about the next phase, about a tech partnership. And I think tech and science is where it now needs to go. And people, if they don't know, Palantir is a huge company in the US. You've got lots of contracts with the White House and your founder, Peter Thiel, I think, has got a lot of relationship with Donald Trump.

And did you notice there how Kunzberg describes the company that he works at, Palantir? What I noticed was that there was no mention of ICE or mass deportation. As journalism, this is so insufficient. The thing is, most of the coverage has been like this. When we're flattered, it's so easy to have the wool pulled over our eyes. And there's a risk that that's what's happening here by Trump, but also by our own leaders.

And for anyone who takes issue with the appearance of that Palantir chief on the BBC in that capacity, there's a link in the show notes where you can complain. Let's take a break. This episode is brought to you by Rakuten. If you're shopping while working, eating, or even listening to this podcast, then you know and love the thrill of the hunt. But are you getting the thrill of the best deals? Rakuten.

Rakuten shoppers do. They get the brands they love with the most savings and cash back. And you can get it too. Start getting cash back at your favorite stores like Samsung, Expedia, and Sephora. And even stack sales on top of cash back.

It's easy to use, and you get your cash back through PayPal or Check. The idea is simple. Stores pay Rakuten for sending them shoppers, and Rakuten shares the money with you as cash back. Download the free Rakuten app and never miss a deal. Or go to Rakuten.com to start getting the most bang for your buck. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N.

Ladies, you'll end up shopping for your guy's deodorant, right? So try Degree's Original Cool Rush. You see, last year, Degree changed the formula and men were mad. One guy even started a petition. So Degree admitted they messed up and brought the Original Cool Rush scent back. It's clean.

Here are some words that have been used this week to describe Gerard Depardieu. French movie legend. A larger-than-life hero.

Legendary. A French icon. France's greatest modern actor. Now, tell me why you think Gerard Depardieu has made headlines this week based on those words. Did he die? These are his, like, obituary, an homage to this great long-gone actor. Uh, no, he's been convicted of two counts of sexual assault. Oh! Now, of course, as we know, allegations of sexual assault ruin men's lives. Uh,

So obviously, Gerard Depardieu is going to prison. Yes, right? No, he got handed an 18-month suspended sentence, which means that he avoids prison time. Wait, what was he convicted for? Two counts of sexual assault. Yes. We know how difficult it is to even get a conviction for sexual assault. And then you get that far and there still might not even be justice. And get this, Depardieu was not even at the court in Paris to hear his guilty verdict.

He was almost 1,600 miles away in one of the Portuguese Azor Islands filming a movie. Is this allowed for everyone or is it just fucking movie stars? To give listeners context, Depoji was found guilty of sexually assaulting two women on a film set. He was convicted of groping a 54-year-old set dresser and a 34-year-old assistant director in 2021. In the case of the set dresser, he did this every day.

in front of people, in front of other crew members. And these witnesses are probably a large reason why they've managed to secure a conviction in this case. But that's not it. More than 20 women have accused Depardieu of misconduct, either publicly or by using formal complaints, although none of those have gone to court. Some of the cases were dropped because of lack of evidence, other after the statute of limitations had expired.

And by the way, at the time that these assaults, which he's now been found guilty for, took place, Depoji was already under formal investigation for rape and,

In 2018, actor Charlotte Arnold accused him of raping her at his home. And that case is still active. And in August 2024, prosecutors requested it go to trial. But back to this case, he's been given a suspended sentence and he was fined just over 29,000 euros, which, to be fair, is unlikely to bother him given how rich he is. Question? Can I ask a question? Yeah. This is a, is this a civil case or a criminal case? Criminal. Criminal.

Sorry, I just like, I feel like I'm quite well briefed in the insufficiencies of the justice system for cases of rape and sexual assault. I didn't think I could be surprised. Well, here you go. But what makes this a media storm story, though, and not just another case of unjust gendered violence, is the ways in which the media has played right into the hands of a man who already thinks he's untouchable.

Now, before I go into the media coverage, I do want to say this. Like, I understand it is important to contextualise. So it is relevant that Depardieu is a famous, powerful, well-known actor. But it is possible to contextualise this briefly and not focus your entire freaking article on the legend that is Gerard Depardieu. An example of relevant contextualising is given here in The Independent, I'd say. They write...

Depardieu is a giant in French cinema. Having starred in more than 250 films, he received an Oscar nomination in 1991 for his performance as the swordsman and poet Serrano de Bergerac. So even if I'd never heard of this man, I'd understand from that line the level of his notoriety. It's factual, but it's not emotive. Exactly. And after this line, there's no mention of his career. So well done to The Independent.

not so well done to the Daily Mail whose headline is French movie legend Gerard Depardieu is found guilty of sexual assault on 2021 film set and especially

especially not so well done to The Telegraph, whose headline is The Sordid Fall of Sacred Monster Gerard Depardieu. With the sub, the man who seduced France with his debauchery once seemed untouchable, but a sexual assault conviction will test the limits of his charm. It's

It's sort of like glamorising his grossness. Oh, just strap in, Matilda, just strap in, because it is this Telegraph article that I really want to go into because, and I do not say this lightly, fucking hell. OK. This Telegraph article is essentially a deep dive into Depoju's life, which already I'm like, why do we need this? What is the point of this?

The Telegraph article paints Depardieu using words like provocative and controversial. It repeatedly lends paragraphs upon paragraphs to his successes and awards. It directly quotes him several times, quotes that give the air of defence for his actions. An example of a Depardieu quote they print is, "...all my life I've been provocative, over-the-top, sometimes offensive."

I often did what nobody else dared, tested limits, upended convictions and habits, and on set, in between takes, in between tensions, laughed and made others laugh. Yeah, I don't think groping and intimidating women on set is a laugh, but cool. Then it gets more unhinged.

The Telegraph writes, Then they give two Depardieu quotes about women. One,

The second, my eye will roam with equal pleasure over the face of a beautiful woman as it will over the cuts of meat displayed in a butcher's shop window. The Telegraph quotes these lines about women without commenting on the fact that they're really fucking offensive. And spoken by a sexual assailant. Exactly.

Exactly, exactly. Then we get on to more defence of Depardieu. Depardieu's upbringing was tumultuous. His family was so poor he left school at 13. There are over a thousand words of this article before we get into the trial. Oh my goodness. Another quote that filled me with rage is... Overflowing with rage. Too much rage for such a small person. Yeah.

was this one during his trial deputies said that he's been unable to work for three years because the allegations cast such a pull over him later in the article it literally says that he's filming a movie right now and now to wrap it up we'll reach the final moment of unhingedness you thought it couldn't get worse but it does the hinges have gone the hinges are off the doors

There are two quotes that are direct defences of Depardieu from older female French actresses who have already voiced their support for Depardieu over the years and who have already voiced their disdain for the Me Too movement in France. One of them is from Brigitte Bardot. She says, people with talent who grab a girl's buttocks are thrown into the bottom of the ditch. We could at least let them carry on living. They can't live anymore. Exactly.

He didn't even have to attend his trial. He didn't attend his trial. He's in Portugal or something filming. And I would call that living.

While that quote is frustrating, what I'm actually more annoyed about is the fact that the quote was included rather than the quote itself. Because it's not necessary to quote her. You know, he's guilty. You don't have to defend him. And did they quote one of the women accusing him? Did they quote any survivor of assault? No. And I...

I mentioned there were two quotes from older French actresses. The article actually ends on a quote from Fanny Ardent, who is a 76-year-old actress and director who's friends with Depardieu and appeared as a character witness to Depardieu in the trial. She says, every form of genius has something extravagant, unyielding, dangerous about it. Everyone can identify with the roles Gerard offered them. No one can identify with Monsieur Perfect.

The fact that it ends, this article ends on a sympathetic quote. It's pointed. It's so pointed. But there is one line that I have not yet said.

And this was the most unhinged line of all in the Telegraph article. Because this was not a quote, this is something written directly by the Telegraph. Despite all his woes, all is not lost for Depardieu. Oh, thank God. The 18-month prison term handed down is only a suspended sentence, while the €29,000 fine will not make much of a dent to a fortune that's estimated to run well into nine figures.

All is not lost. Can you imagine writing all is not lost about a man who has been convicted of two sexual assaults and has 20 plus allegations? Can you imagine? Don't have to imagine. Don't have to imagine. It's real. Telegraph's on it for us.

So, Matilda. So. Starmer went in hard on immigration this week in a speech which his own party members likened to Enoch Powell's river of blood. I'm sure you've got something to say about this. No, no opinion.

Yeah, I watched this speech a few times. I read the transcript a few times. Here's the story. This week we've seen what the Sunday Express front page called the biggest overhaul of immigration laws since Brexit. But in reality, so much of this overhaul, it's not the structured, expert-led immigration reform that Labour promised us in its manifesto. And I want to start off by saying...

I do understand that there is an importance to have some control around immigration and to reduce, as Labour said in its manifesto, our reliance on underpaid foreign workers rather than focusing on making sure, you know, most of our workforce is employed and housed. I understand the value of that. The thing is, this is not what so many of the policies, especially the ones that they put up front in the speech, it's not what they do.

What they do is the basest, cheapest level of policymaking. It is headline politics, not anything improving our society. And there was a lot in this policy announcement. So can you give us an example? I'm going to pick out three examples. The first

Policy I'm taking issue with. Yet more new powers to deport foreign criminals. So why is that cheap policymaking? Because there are already so many laws in place that already do this. Five years ago, it was made a legal obligation for the Home Secretary to deport anyone with a prison sentence of 12 months or more from a foreign country. There were also additional ministerial powers given to deport anyone for lesser offences.

that they sort of vaguely deem not conducive to the public good. The Court of Appeals actually had to step in because they thought the government was overusing these powers to deport people for like petty crime, including minors. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the understanding that the new laws were trying to get around the European Court of Human Rights, which has blocked a number of deportations of people who have committed serious crimes. Yeah, this doesn't do that. That is a massive issue that the right has taken.

that deportations of foreign criminals have been blocked by human rights law. This is a very complicated area where these domestic laws and international laws conflict. It's also a very, very, very rare problem. So that's why this is a media storm story, because if you were to read the media, you could very easily think that deportations are always being blocked by human rights law.

There's been a lot of coverage given to a small handful of cases. But to quote a brilliant piece by Jamie Burton in The Guardian about this, this is a problem that does not really exist. As mentioned, under current laws, anyone with a criminal sentence of 12 months or more is automatically deported. They have to meet a very high threshold to argue against that. And the vast, vast, vast majority of those who even attempt that fail.

remember reading in all the right wing media about a man who fought deportation because his son only ate chicken nuggets he wouldn't be able to get in a different country or something that's actually a very good example

example because that was widely reported but he failed not only did he fail in his attempt the judge actually said you do not come anywhere near meeting the burden of proof to stay in this country and the thing is Starmer's law it's not even about human rights law this policy doesn't change any of that this is just rewriting policies that already exists and in doing so it's feeding exaggerated fears about foreign criminals Starmer is playing into a narrative that he cannot win

Not without ripping up everything he's ever stood for. And was voted in for. Yeah. Okay, next example. The next policy I take issue with is the decision to double the amount of years before most migrants can claim citizenship from five to up to 10 years.

This is so cruel. And the thing is, it doesn't achieve anything positive for society. Integration was the word Keir Starmer kept saying in the speech. Integration is so important. You know, you see all these complaints about migrants not integrating, not adopting British customs, not learning our language. To get citizenship, you have to demonstrate doing all those things. And it is so hypocritical. Like, ever heard of Brits abroad? I know, I know.

Getting citizenship, it makes you feel part of your society. It instills like loyalty and gratitude.

We know immigration can be a really difficult thing for a society without proper integration. We also know immigration can be a really good thing for our society with good integration. So why are we bringing in all these policies that are literally designed to prevent it? It's not just extending the citizenship waiting time. It's confining asylum seekers in enclosures away from normal residents, banning them from working, from being our colleagues in

This is a really good way to guarantee immigration is as unsuccessful as possible. And on that topic, there's a clip I want to play from one of the most important voices in this story, one of the people living it. This is Jonas, an asylum seeker in the UK, currently being held in Wethersfield, a mass containment site in Essex, which is representative of how our governments section off and re-traumatise people coming here in a bid to look like they are controlling immigration. But this is what it looks like in real life.

Weatherfeld is a prison. They take us away from the people, from the city, from everything. Just go to the food station and go to bed. What can you say to that? It is a prison. There is four people, six people in the room. At first I was like, do they want us to fight? Why did they put us in here? But some things you have to accept if there is no choice. The doctor told me that the environment here is not good for your health, while at the same time you cannot do anything.

I'm just hoping this will finish. It's very stressful, you know. All these problems, all this life. I'm just hoping to finish my degree in this country. Because I've been travelling around so many problems. But it was... I don't want to remember this. I just wanted to finish. I'm just hoping to live peacefully. I have to focus on my life. I have to do something with my life. If you are dead, you are dead. If you are alive, you have to do something.

Médecins Sans Frontières and Doctors of the World UK have just published a report about this asylum facility. They are urging the government to close it as a health emergency. You can read the full report in the show notes. And now, what is your third and final example?

The third policy I'm going to highlight here is the decision to restrict family reunification. The UK Labour government plans to reduce the number of people being brought over by relatives who've migrated to the UK. What I want to highlight today is that when it comes to asylum seekers, there's a good reason for us to preserve family reunification. And it is coming from the right wing media.

you will often hear these media condemn that all the people coming over in dinghies to claim asylum are men. Here's a talk TV clip we talked about in the finale of our last season. What amazes me is that all the immigrants that we have are men. Not all, but we have a lot of single men. Yeah, a lot of single men. BEEP

They're cowards. Where are all the women and children? They've abandoned the women and children back home. I mean, I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. It's not how it works. When you don't have legal and safe routes for people to claim asylum and you have millions and millions and millions of people who need asylum, then men take those dangerous journeys, often so that they can support the women and their families either by sending money back or...

or in the best case scenario, by bringing them over through family reunification. Family reunification is the only hope that women and children have of coming over safely without exposing themselves to the journeys on which they will most likely be assaulted, raped, detained, tortured, held hostage, which by the way happens to many of the men who do these journeys.

Family unification is the reason that you don't see as many women and children in those boats as you see men. And I guarantee you, if we strip that back, that is something we will start to see more.

Which is supposedly the opposite of what the commentator's asking, where are all the women and children want? But that's the thing. So many of the policies announced, they do not achieve the fair and controlled immigration system that Starmer claims. They are simply appealing to the electorate's basest instincts. And for this, I massively blame our media.

The sensationalist and panic-striking messaging around migration has made it impossible to implement nuanced evidence-based policies that control the negatives of immigration while promoting the positives of immigration. These three policies are examples of that, adding yet more bureaucracy to the deportation process.

process, doubling the amount of time it takes to integrate and reducing legal family reunification routes. This is headline politics at its worst. Meanwhile, the people whose lives it actually affects, they will suffer immensely. So much that like, I actually just wanted, I wanted to cry. And this is all for the sake of trying to cling on to power. Yeah.

Because essentially, Labour is trying to beat reform at their own game. Which is stupid. So stupid. You cannot fight fire with fire. You cannot be more anti-immigration than reform without being straight up fascist. That is a race to the bottom that you cannot win.

Time for Eyes on Palestine. Today's Eyes on Palestine is a quick segment, but there's a point to that because we want to show that that's all it takes to remember that people are living in a war zone. We get fatigued to this, we get normalised, but this is what a single day in a war zone looks like. We're recording on Wednesday, so this is a Wednesday stat. Between midnight on Tuesday and when we were recording, 10am on Wednesday, 65 Palestinians had been killed.

And you know what? I also took a little look at Ukraine because it is day 1175 of the war in Ukraine. And every day people are going through this. At least three people were killed in a Russian bombardment of Ukraine's Kharkiv. At least 16 people were wounded by a Ukrainian drone attack on the region of Belgorod.

People are living through war. And as a call to action, what we can do is we can uplift the voices who are reporting on these war zones. You can find information by looking up the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Thank you for listening. Next week, we will be bringing you a deep dive where we look at the situation in the Niger Delta, where Shell has been accused of toxic oil spills. We reported on this a few years ago, but there's an update now as the story goes to trial, which means that over in the UK and with us in the studio, we will have some community leaders telling us what's going on.

If you want to support MediaStorm, you can do so on Patreon for less than a cup of coffee a month. The link is in the show notes and a special shout out to everyone in our Patreon community. We appreciate you so much. If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with someone. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow a podcast. So please tell your friends and leave a five star rating and a review.

You can follow us on social media at MatildaMal, at HelenaWardia, and follow the show via at MediaStormPod. MediaStorm is an award-winning podcast produced by Helena Wardia and Matilda Mallinson. The music is by Sam Fire.