Beyond the Noise: How lived experience shaped Question Time 

A standout moment for IMIX this year was leading the organisation’s response to BBC Question Time after the programme invited people who had reached the UK via small boat to join the audience for its Dover immigration special. From the outset, our priority was safeguarding. We challenged the assumption that people should participate simply because they had recently crossed the Channel, and instead asked fundamental questions: What is the purpose of their involvement? How will they be protected? How can their participation be meaningful rather than extractive? 

We pushed for opportunities not just to feature refugees on camera, but to allow people with lived experience to shape the programme’s understanding of the issues behind the headlines. To their credit, the production team was open and collaborative. We identified two contributors, Alireza and Ashraf, who wished to take part. Both contributors have leave to remain and are settled in London with families and jobs. Our colleague Elahe worked closely with them in advance, supporting them to explore what they felt comfortable discussing, where their boundaries lay, and preparing the likelihood of hearing challenging or hostile views. Both men confirmed they wanted to participate as long as they felt fully informed and well prepared. 

As a local Kent resident, I had already applied to be in the audience and felt glad I could be there as moral support for the lived experience contributors. Walking into the room was daunting; Dover is not a particularly multicultural area, and I was conscious that many in the audience might hold anti-migrant views. Yet after the show, I found myself in honest, open conversations, the kind of constructive engagement with the mixed middle that IMIX always strives for. As one of the lived experience contributors told me afterwards: “It is so important that we are here. We often talk to people within our echo chamber. We need to reach those who have never met a refugee but may still talk about us with hate.” 

There were strong views in the audience on all sides, but there were many voices which were widely compassionate and empathetic toward people seeking asylum. While the panel frequently spoke over one another, many audience members asked measured questions and contributed thoughtfully to the debate. 

A win on three levels 

For IMIX, the experience was a win on three levels. 

First, we ensured that people with lived experience were included in a national conversation they are too often excluded from. 

Second, it gave us the opportunity to test some of our messaging directly, including through a question I asked about the real impact of the political obsession with lowering migration. 

And most importantly, both contributors were able to take part in a way that was genuinely meaningful, not as soundbites but as contributors behind the scenes whose perspectives helped shape the framing of the entire programme. 

Both men did brilliantly on the night, despite a challenging panel. Afterwards one told us: “I live in a country where there is freedom of expression and human rights. The things I said in the programme were true and I had told the story of my immigration journey to the immigration office before. I am not worried or afraid because I told the truth and came and participated of my own free will.” 

The backlash 

Over the weekend, the story took an unpleasant turn when a guest on the panel publicly claimed that the BBC had planted ‘illegal immigrants’ in the audience to trip him up. His comments were widely amplified across the national media, well into the following week. Thankfully, many people on social media pushed back against these accusations, highlighting both their inaccuracy and the harm such rhetoric can cause. Many shared the opinion that as people with lived experience of the asylum system the men had probably more right to be in the audience than anyone else there. 

Both men have fed back that they are pleased they took part in the debate, even with the unpleasant stories that appeared around them on social media and in various media stories. We have spent the past week in contact with them, after debriefing following the recording. Checking in to see how they are feeling, the follow-up is possibly more important than preparing people for media appearances. It is really hard to not take things personally, particularly when the rhetoric is so hostile and can feel overwhelmingly negative. 

Moments like this remind us that while the loudest claims dominate headlines, it is the steady quiet voices of lived experience that the silent majority recognises as truth.