A coalition of 50 civil-society organisations led by the Runnymede Trust has written to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the National Police Chiefs’ Council demanding an immediate review of guidance that encourages forces in England and Wales to publish a suspect’s ethnicity and nationality when announcing arrests and charges.
Introduced in August, the policy was designed to ‘counter far-right speculation’ after high-profile crimes. But new monitoring by the groups shows the word “asylum-seeker” now appears in crime coverage **five times more often** than before, while references to a suspect’s immigration status are often carried in headlines when more relevant details—such as the individual’s risk profile—are absent. The letter argues the practice is “having a devastating impact on community cohesion” by fuelling an impression that criminality and immigration are linked.
![Campaigners warn police ethnicity disclosures stoke prejudice against migrants]()
Business-mobility specialists say the row matters because corporate assignees and their families increasingly weigh social attitudes when deciding on UK postings. “Perceived hostility can deter talent just as effectively as red tape,” notes Charles Hannon, global-mobility lead at consultancy Sterling Lexicon. Companies operating in sectors that rely on skilled-worker visas—tech, healthcare and engineering—could therefore face an additional barrier to attraction and retention if migrants feel singled out in public discourse.
A change of guidance would not require legislation, but forces would have to amend media policies and retrain communications staff. Home Office officials privately acknowledge the tension between transparency and community relations; a compromise under discussion would limit disclosure to nationality (not immigration route) and only in cases where there is an overriding public-interest test such as a suspect being at large.
For global-mobility teams the practical advice is threefold: first, reassure staff that ethnicity is never checked at the UK border and does not affect immigration status; second, update relocation briefings to address media coverage concerns; and third, monitor Home-Office updates—any formal revision could be folded rapidly into police operational manuals. Until then, employers may wish to bolster employee-assistance programmes and diversity networks to help international staff navigate negative press narratives.
Introduced in August, the policy was designed to ‘counter far-right speculation’ after high-profile crimes. But new monitoring by the groups shows the word “asylum-seeker” now appears in crime coverage **five times more often** than before, while references to a suspect’s immigration status are often carried in headlines when more relevant details—such as the individual’s risk profile—are absent. The letter argues the practice is “having a devastating impact on community cohesion” by fuelling an impression that criminality and immigration are linked.
Business-mobility specialists say the row matters because corporate assignees and their families increasingly weigh social attitudes when deciding on UK postings. “Perceived hostility can deter talent just as effectively as red tape,” notes Charles Hannon, global-mobility lead at consultancy Sterling Lexicon. Companies operating in sectors that rely on skilled-worker visas—tech, healthcare and engineering—could therefore face an additional barrier to attraction and retention if migrants feel singled out in public discourse.
A change of guidance would not require legislation, but forces would have to amend media policies and retrain communications staff. Home Office officials privately acknowledge the tension between transparency and community relations; a compromise under discussion would limit disclosure to nationality (not immigration route) and only in cases where there is an overriding public-interest test such as a suspect being at large.
For global-mobility teams the practical advice is threefold: first, reassure staff that ethnicity is never checked at the UK border and does not affect immigration status; second, update relocation briefings to address media coverage concerns; and third, monitor Home-Office updates—any formal revision could be folded rapidly into police operational manuals. Until then, employers may wish to bolster employee-assistance programmes and diversity networks to help international staff navigate negative press narratives.
