Pro-migrant campaigners boasted that they had influenced a BBC children’s television show as part of an attempt to change attitudes to asylum seekers. The Telegraph has the story.
The group lobbied the producers of a CBBC programme for children aged around seven to “impact the framing of migration”.
Another charity claimed to have helped place a piece about refugees finding a new home in Britain on BBC News and a newspaper article about LGBT refugees from Africa.
In a third case, campaigners helped shape the sympathetic portrayal of an asylum seeker on Coronation Street, the ITV soap opera.
Specialists in “narrative change” are working to influence the British public opinion and build support for immigration using mass media.
The examples, uncovered by a Telegraph investigation, are part of a long-term campaign of persuasion by such charities, as Britain wrestles with a surge of legal and illegal immigration.
Millions of pounds have been pumped into these efforts to push positive migration narratives through news, dramas, comedy and children’s television, with large sums being paid by Left-wing foundations.
In some cases, taxpayers are footing the bill themselves.
One of the key charities involved in the campaign is Heard, an organisation that has received more than £4.5 million in grant funding since its inception in 2021.
Experts from the charity – which seeks to “shift public attitudes, norms and policy preferences” – met producers of the CBBC comedy Pickle Storm to shape the second series before its release in 2025.
The programme follows the adventure of Pickle, a young alien who flees persecution on her home planet and finds refuge in a British town, setting the stage for her family to experience humorous moments of culture shock.
Campaigners met the show’s producers as part of an effort to “tap into children’s media and directly impact framing of migration in children’s content”, according to a report by Heard.
The charity claimed that the producer of Pickle Storm, Blackdog Television, then used this to inform its second series.
It is understood that outside producers, and one member of the BBC’s children’s programming wing, took part in a Zoom call with Heard representatives.
The BBC said that the charity had no power to influence editing or production of its programming, and that consultation with experts was common practice.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If that wasn’t bad enough, its about a black man and a fat woman.
Its simple, if you come here legally, pay for yourself and integrate, fine, if you come here illegally, you are not welcome, why are taxpayers footing the bill for all these so called “charities”?, why do we not get a say where our hard earned money goes? And why do the so called “welcomers” never offer a home to any of these people?, they should be forced to, bit like having children, you want em, you pay for them, they come here for what they can get.
For pro-migrant read pro-open borders, meaning no welfare state (education, state services and healthcare) and economic anarchy. Which part of this is so hard to understand?
to “impact the framing of migration”.
Is this phrase actually English? In any case, I bet the anti-whitists and anglophobes who use that phrase are very, very quiet indeed about the murders, rapes, and robberies committed by the people they’re so desperate to replace us with.
The political class, government, quangos and BBC are engaged in overt propaganda against the people of Britain. There will have to be accountability one day and we must not allow them to escape as the Post Office executives have escaped punishment.
Defund the BBC. It will prevent ‘preaching’ to some extent and set an example for QUANGOs and NGOs.
Alternatively add the BBC to the Starmer social media ban list? No?
These influencers are wasting their time. The downsides of mass migration are obvious in every aspect of British life. In particular an extra 10 million migrants over the past couple of decades has effectively priced young people out of their starter homes. I think many will come to realise this, despite what the BBC say.
Genuine asylum seekers are, and always have been fine – so long as they respect the culture and laws of the UK and actively want to integrate and contribute to society.
Single, male chancers with medieval attitudes who are coming here to take advantage of the welfare state and very lax justice are not, and never will be welcome, however.
Unless by the Metropolitan Elite NIMBYs, of course.
Well said. If all these people arriving by boat are genuine refugees, then there are legal ways of getting here. And why are there so few women and children on the boats?
Define “genuine” and how is it proved?
If they come on a boat from France they are definitely not genuine, France is not war torn so any asylum claim should already have been applied for in any one of thr numerous European countries they’ve already come through! And most African migrants totally ignore Kenya which is far safer and easier to claim asylum, so why dont they? we all know they answer to that, seeking prosperity not escape from war!
I am not sure how you can be so confident about that. There are so few genuine ones I am surprised you have encountered many. I assume you are not talking about the ones who came here in past generations.
“Genuine asylum seekers” bla, bla, bla.
NO.
As a nation we’ve been punched too many times to take anymore of this “asylum seekers” BS.
Get rid of all the trash we’ve let in, cease all applications until we’ve rebuilt our country then maybe, perhaps, maybe…
Genuine Asylum Seekers to Britain DO NOT EXIST.
All Asylum Seekers are required to seek asylum IN THE NEAREST NEIGHBOURING COUNTRY to their own, which NONE of them ever actually do, but travel thousands of miles through countless SAFE COUNTRIES to reach Britain. They come for Free Stuff.
All of Britain’s nearest neighbouring countries are perfectly SAFE, and therefore all asylum seekers here are FAKE.
As former Queen’s Chaplain Revd. Gavin Ashenden summed it all up so succinctly,
“The whole asylum system is POLITICAL DECEIT!”
When talking about genuine refugees, you could argue that any country at war or where there is oppression of people will ‘produce’ refugees.
We need to talk about number of people. How many refugees are there worldwide? How many can any country deal with?
And are neighbouring countries not best placed to take refugees, so they can return when war is over?