Yes, I found this a very depressing programme, evaluating human beings purely as economic units. I am sure it was designed to spark debate, but it was very narrow in scope, and would have played right into the hands, or minds, of the bigot and the narrow-minded. I don't think it will stimulate a useful progressive debate, just another polemic one.

How can a carefully constructed and well researched documentary with proven facts laid bare for all to see and people to judge for themselves, be unhelpful or twisted into some racially motivated event?

Do people really wish to bury their heads in the sand or do they really want to know about the good and the ugly side of immigration and asylum seeking?

I think anyone with any modicum of intelligence would rather see facts laid out before them rather than be force fed a lie any day.

The problem is not the content but the EFFECT of the programme, whether it enlightens and
unburdens all the issues or whether, overall, it contributes to a much more subtle process of
undermining the people it featured, rather than legitimising their lives.

The problem for me is that television researchers and university researchers have been turned into
nerds by the celebritising of television culture so their imput, impact and caveats aren't part of
the process of making what is seen as good television. Everything is personalised so that there
is no overall benchmark of quality information as the purpose of documentary making.

What this means practically, is that there is no continuity of stories that aren't within the
sensationalist agenda any longer. My argument is for an awareness of this and for as many people
as possible to get involved in producing good quality local media that is confident enough to talk
about the connections between people rather than concentrating on already written stereotypes. If
the banner to a well constructed, well researched piece of work is stridently negative then most
people will only listen to the bits that confirm their fears and prejudices.

I think that the media establishment have a lot to gain by getting off their celebrity podia and
considering the poor, the weak, the disadvantaged as people with legitimate lives, expectations
and aspirations rather than as criminal accidents about to happen for which they have an archive
of amenable academics and statistics to validate...

Finally, that's how I felt about this programme!

Dear Paula....

I understand your frustrations and the light that you see this programme in but there is no right way to present "facts" that don't quite sit well with an ever burdened society that has genuine concerns over the ever increasing immigration and settlement of people who more often than not do not bring anything with them except their needs.

Censorship of the facts or dressing up immigration as a purely positive theme is a great distortion of the truth.... in my comments, I merely wished to express this but I note that you happened to omit my comments and merely put "comment" in its place.... this is blatant censorship and suggests to me that you have your own agenda whilst you serve to add comments that fit into you narrow view of things.

There are always two sides to a story and the two should be heard, this is what democracy stands for so whilst you are being selective in the views you put forward you are not being a representative of the many different views on a subject which if debated might not go the way you wish it to. You are not painting the bigger picture but merely enforcing your blinkered outlook on the subject.... if I can see that then many will follow behind me.

Regards. Mark.
Dear Mark

Did you see me as the editor?

I didn't know that I was supposed to do that! I thought that the body of the original comment
served as the discussion point for other comments and that your comment and my comment on the
original comment had equal weight.

I think it's really interesting that we all come from such different points of initial reference
to begin a discussion. If you and I don't really understand the resource of indymedia in a
congruent way then that in itself is indicative of why I think the programme simply served to
snowball the immigration issue.

One thing is for sure.

Neither of us is going to be able to watch any follow up programmes because none will be made
because noone really cares enough about following through the points and the research as the
polemic expressed in the programme would be unsustainable and soon seen through.

What I would like to see is a move where the BBC came into public accountability away from chasing
market share, to make useful and practical documentaries that have real educational worth over
time. The problem is the problem of knowledge: who has it and what they choose to do with it.

At the present time knowledge is abused by a supply and dissemination cycle within media companies
who are unaccountable to anyone. They may not realise it but they are effectively working in a
vacuum producing quick hits to keep some money coming in.

I hope you realise that I'm not a stupid or a blinkered person. I understand how the media works
but at the same time I always look further than the content of a programme into its effects and
impact on everyone who might watch it. I don't think TV watching is a simple process.

Kind regards

Paula

I think you're response to the documentary is too emotional and reactive, I think seeing Immigrants as part of one big bag of oppressed people is the mistake you make. I thought Snow did try to show some of the differences between the way different immigrant groups have experience life here wasn't entirely negative at all - and in fact, there are negative aspects for the poor who already live in high density immigration areas. I live in Bradford and witness confrontations between different groups on a regular basis - this is not just about the UK oppressing immigrants - there's a lot more to it than that. There are problems as well as excellent things that minority groups can bring to an area - and you cannot totalise, it is different from group to group and from area to area.

Maybe I over-reacted to what I saw as a seamless TV formula which can't admit careful research into the process of how housing is allocated. A step by step look at the whole process, to find out why it isn't working, for example. This programme didn't really know the questions to ask and where to look for the answers, because the people the answers would serve aren't important. they're either poor, on low incomes, or are part of the so-called 'underclass'.
For example, what are the numbers of vacant properties within local authorities in the UK, why haven't those properties been refurbished, who they are let to on a short term basis, why those lettings are made, what the relationship is between buy to let landlords and the security of tenants in housing and work...what is the relationship between new builds in our cities and social housing. How is land perceived and developed.

Whose home is safe in this society and whose home is under threat?

I was eating my dinner last night and saw this Advert about "dogs" one finally shitted on the grass, which was a bit much as I forked another spud in my mouth, but worse was to come, the Tag line: The debate on immigration, what so immigrants shit on "our" land do they, they are animals are they, dogs?

This is a disgusting way to portray other human beings, Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself I suggest we all e-mail there complaints department now at:

 http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Company=%7B2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669%7D,T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=General