Piddington migrant camp DOES pose a risk to women and girls, government admits as police also raise crime fears

The Daily Mail states in its headline and twice in its own voice that the Piddington camp 'does pose a risk to women and girls', and credits this to a Government admission. The planning document it quotes says officials considered concerns about the safety of women and girls, and that security measures 'cannot eliminate all risk' but 'would materially reduce' risks. The Mail also turns one Police and Crime Commissioner's warning that the site may increase the risk of crime into fears from 'police chiefs'.

1. Headline goes beyond the article

   Serious

   “DOES pose a risk to women and girls, government admits”

   Why this matters

   The headline puts 'DOES pose a risk to women and girls' in capitals and presents it as something the Government 'admits'.

   The impression it gives

   The Government has conceded in writing that the men to be housed at the camp are a danger to local women and girls.

   The context

   The document the article quotes says officials 'considered' concerns about women's and girls' safety among other effects, and that its measures 'would materially reduce security and community-safety risks'. Nothing quoted in the body admits a risk to women and girls.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“including concerns about the safety of women and girls”
   • Elsewhere in the article“officials consider that they would materially reduce security and community-safety risks”

   Show it in the article

   “police also raise crime fears”

   Why this matters

   The headline says 'police' raised crime fears.

   The impression it gives

   The police force itself warned the camp will bring more crime.

   The context

   The only crime warning in the body comes from Matthew Barber, the Police and Crime Commissioner, an elected office, who said the setting 'may' increase the risk of crime. The advice the article gives from Thames Valley Police itself concerns site suitability, visibility, protest and policing costs, not crime.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“Matthew Barber, Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley”
   • Elsewhere in the article“further consideration to the suitability of the site”

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   Government accepts Piddington camp measures 'cannot eliminate all risk' as police commissioner objects and force questions site's suitability.

2. States one side's claim as fact

   Serious

   “does pose a risk to women and girls, while police chiefs fear there could also be increased crime , Government documents show”

   Why this matters

   In its own voice the Mail opens by stating as fact that the camp 'does pose a risk to women and girls' and credits this to 'Government documents'.

   The impression it gives

   It is an established, officially documented fact that the asylum seekers are a threat to women and girls, and that senior police officers predict a crime rise.

   The context

   The document records concerns about women's safety as one of the effects officials weighed, and concludes its measures would materially reduce risks. The crime warning is one commissioner's 'may increase the risk', not 'police chiefs'. The Mail's opening line is a campaigners' and politicians' framing given the authority of a government document.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“including concerns about the safety of women and girls”
   • Elsewhere in the article“may increase the risk of social isolation, increase the risk of crime”

   “'cannot eliminate all risk' to villagers”

   Why this matters

   The Mail attaches the words 'to villagers' to the quoted phrase 'cannot eliminate all risk' and leaves off the rest of the document's sentence.

   The impression it gives

   The document warns that the camp's residents put villagers at risk.

   The context

   The full sentence says the measures 'would materially reduce security and community-safety risks'. The words 'to villagers' are the Mail's addition, and the conclusion that risk is reduced is cut from this line.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“officials consider that they would materially reduce security and community-safety risks”

   “does pose a risk to women and girls”

   Why this matters

   The Mail repeats the same claim a second time in its own voice, below a block of document quotes.

   The impression it gives

   Repetition confirms the claim as the article's settled finding before the reader reaches the document's own wording.

   The context

   The document's own words, printed a few lines later, describe considered concerns and reduced risk, not an admitted risk to women and girls.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“considered effects on neighbouring communities”