Here’s the pattern.
When a BBC sting suggests a handful of immigration advisers may have been coaching false asylum claims, the reaction is swift and theatrical. Headlines, ministerial outrage, knowing nods from the usual suspects. It does not take long before some politicians and commentators start treating it less as a specific abuse to be investigated, and more as proof that the system itself is fundamentally compromised.
Now compare that with SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against public participation. Here we have something not alleged but well established. Wealthy claimants using English courts to intimidate journalists, bury investigations, and price critics out of speaking. Not a marginal flaw, but a predictable consequence of how the system works if you have the money. The response has been limited and carefully scoped.
One might suspect that outrage in Britain is not driven by the scale of a problem, but by its usefulness.
The asylum story, if proven, is straightforward. It is misconduct. Regulators investigate, people are struck off, perhaps prosecuted. It is a bounded problem with a clear remedy.
SLAPPs are more corrosive. They do not break the rules, they exploit them. A letter before action, backed by the prospect of ruinous costs, is often enough. No judge, no verdict, just pressure. The law functioning as designed, but producing a result that looks a lot like censorship.
We have even seen a version of this play out in British politics. Arron Banks pursued a lengthy libel case against a journalist over reporting in the public interest. Whether or not one applies the formal SLAPP label, the effect was familiar. Years of litigation, vast cost exposure, and a clear signal to anyone else tempted to dig too closely.
And yet it is the asylum story that is inflated into a national scandal, while this sort of behaviour is treated as a technical legal dispute.
Why? Because one story fits a political narrative and the other does not. “Migrants gaming the system” travels well. “The legal system can be used by the rich to suppress scrutiny” is less convenient, particularly when some of those involved move in the same political circles.
So we get the usual distortion. A small, grubby corner of the asylum process is made to stand in for the whole. Meanwhile a systemic problem affecting public interest journalism is narrowed and delayed until it is barely visible.
No conspiracy required. Just incentives. Politicians chase votes. Newspapers chase clicks. Regulators move slowly unless pushed. And the law does what it is designed to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment