Home Office evades censure over ‘go home’ advertising

The campaign, which involved poster-clad vans driving through six London boroughs between July 22 and July 28, drew 224 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), including some from groups representing migrants in the UK, legal academics and the Labour peer Lord Lipsey.

The poster featured a close-up image of someone holding a pair of handcuffs and wearing a uniform with a “Home Office” badge and a box stating: “In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest.”

Green text in the style of an official stamp stated “106 arrests last week in your area”.

Small print at the bottom of the poster said the arrest figures were from the period June 30 to July 6 and covered Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, Barnet, Brent, Ealing and Hounslow.

Most complainants said the poster, and in particular the phrase “go home”, was offensive and distressing because it was reminiscent of slogans used by racist groups to attack immigrants in the past, and irresponsible and harmful because it could incite or exacerbate racial hatred and tensions in multicultural communities.

Several complainants challenged whether the claim “106 arrests last week in your area” was misleading and could be substantiated, while others said the small print was not legible on a moving vehicle.

The Home Office said the vans were sent to boroughs that had either significantly above average, or very low, uptake of the voluntary departure route for illegal immigrants.

The message, that was “in no way racist”, needed to be short and easily understood because it was displayed on moving vehicles.

The ASA said it acknowledged that the phrase “go home” was reminiscent of slogans used in the past to attack immigrants to the UK, but was generally used in that context as a standalone phrase or accompanied by racially derogatory language.

It said: “We recognised that the poster, and the phrase “go home” in particular, were likely to be distasteful to some in the context of an ad addressed to illegal immigrants, irrespective of the overall message conveyed, and we recognised that wording less likely to produce that response, such as ‘return home’ could have been used.”