Complaint
A listener complained that a programme headline inaccurately suggested a former police officer who carried out a review into the strip-search of a fifteen year old female student in London believed racism was 鈥渒别测鈥 to understanding what had happened, whereas the review itself had identified racism only as a possible factor.
Outcome
The headline was based on an interview with Jim Gamble, a former police officer who carried out the official Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review into the case. 聽Mr Gamble was asked about the concept of 鈥渁诲耻濒迟颈蹿颈肠补迟颈辞苍鈥, described in a report by Her Majesty鈥檚 Inspectorate of Probation as a point when 鈥渘otions of innocence and vulnerability are not afforded to certain children鈥etermined by people and institutions who hold power over them. When adultification occurs outside of the home it is always founded within discrimination and bias鈥.聽 In the interview Mr Gamble said of the Child Q case: 鈥淔rom all of the information I had, I believe, whether deliberate or not, racism is likely to have played a part. I also believe that adultification is part of that. And when colleagues, former colleagues say to me I accept adultification but I don鈥檛 accept the racism, that has caused me to reflect because adultification is not how a person looks, it鈥檚 how you perceive them when you look at them, and it鈥檚 part of racism. And I believe that young black children are in many cases treated as if they are older鈥.
The ECU did not agree the headline misrepresented Mr Gamble. 聽Even though he used the word 鈥渓颈办别濒测鈥 in relation to the role of racism, it was clear from his remarks as a whole that he did regard racism as a central element in the incident, because he considered that adultification had occurred, and that, in this context, it was 鈥減art of racism鈥.
Not Upheld