SNP considers reparations for gypsies over ‘historic trauma’
Findings are available in the analysis below.4 findings
We do not republish articles from The Telegraph. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Telegraph calls a coercive 1940s policy a "social experiment" and, in its own voice, gives poor huts and the children's welfare as the reasons children were taken. Its own later paragraphs report that parents were threatened with losing their children and that researchers said the policy could be described as "cultural genocide". It also tags a public heritage body "The SNP quango", calls Stephen Kerr the justice secretary while presenting him as an opposition politician, and quotes no Gypsy, Traveller or campaigner while two opposition politicians call the push for redress nonsense.
Tells the event as something else
Minor
“as part of a social experiment to integrate the community into mainstream society”
Why this matters
In its own voice, near the top, the Telegraph calls the policy a "social experiment to integrate the community".
The impression it gives
A reader believes the 1940s policy was a benign, if failed, effort at integration.
The context
Lower down, the article reports that parents were threatened with losing their children if they refused to leave their roadside settlements. It also reports that the researchers commissioned by the Scottish Government said the policy could be described as "cultural genocide".
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Parents were threatened with having their children taken from them”
Elsewhere in the article“could be described as “cultural genocide””
“were forcibly removed because the Nissen huts were of poor quality and often overcrowded”
Why this matters
The Telegraph gives the poor huts, in its own voice, as the reason children were taken.
The impression it gives
A reader believes the removals were a welfare response to bad housing.
The context
The article's own later account shows that the threat of removal was used to force families off the roadside and into the camp. The removals were part of the coercion, not only a reaction to overcrowding.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“put into care if they refused to leave their settlements on roadsides”
“rehomed for their own welfare”
Why this matters
The Telegraph repeats, unattributed, the welfare justification for taking children from their families.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it as established fact that the children were removed for their own good.
The context
"For their own welfare" is the authorities' rationale. The research the article cites found that Scottish institutions were complicit in persecuting the community.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“allowed the traveller community to be persecuted”
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“The SNP quango”
Why this matters
The Telegraph tags Historic Environment Scotland, a public heritage body, as "The SNP quango".
The impression it gives
A reader believes the heritage body's offer was a party political move.
The context
The article gives nothing to show the body belongs to or acts for the SNP. The label echoes the opposition attack in a later quote rather than describing the body.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“it’s clear the SNP’s priorities are completely broken”
“She failed to rule out”
Why this matters
"Failed to" casts the minister's position as a lapse.
The impression it gives
A reader believes the minister dodged or slipped up.
The context
Her letter openly says redress remains under consideration, so not ruling it out is her stated position.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“this remains part of our wider consideration”
Makes a false claim
Minor
“the Scottish Tory justice secretary”
Why this matters
The Telegraph gives Stephen Kerr the title of justice secretary.
The impression it gives
A reader believes a Conservative holds the justice portfolio in the Scottish Government.
The context
The article itself says the government is the SNP's and introduces Mr Kerr among opposition politicians, so he cannot be the justice secretary.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“opposition politicians have described offering compensation”
Elsewhere in the article“The SNP Government is considering”
One side gets the space
Minor
“purely to pander to fringe extremists”
Why this matters
The Telegraph prints a Tory MSP calling the campaigners "fringe extremists". No Gypsy, Traveller, descendant or campaigner is quoted anywhere in reply.
The impression it gives
A reader is left with the impression that the push for redress comes from a fringe.
The context
The article itself reports that the Scottish Human Rights Commission called for financial compensation. The families affected never speak in the piece, while two opposition politicians get four sentences.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“called for “transformative reparations” including “financial compensation to victims and families””