In a climate increasingly shaped by viral social media posts and political point-scoring, Full Fact, the UK’s leading fact-checking organisation, has taken a closer look at some of the most widely circulated claims from the past week.
Deportation or return? What Labour’s 19,000 figure really means
Labour ministers have claimed that 19,000 individuals have been “deported” under the current government. In a recent interview, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle stated: “We have already deported, sent home, 19,000 people with no right to be here.”
This figure, while technically accurate in terms of returns, does not refer solely to formal deportations. It includes a broad category of “returns” – which covers both enforced removals and voluntary departures.
Data published by the Home Office confirms that 18,987 individuals were returned up to 31 January 2025, with that figure rising to 24,103 by March 22. However, only a minority of these were formal deportations. Just 27% and 26% respectively were “enforced returns”, which includes but is not limited to deportations.
The Home Office defines deportation narrowly: either following a criminal conviction or when deemed in the public good. Voluntary returns, particularly those not supported by the government, are classed separately as “other verified returns”.
Between July and December 2024, such returns made up 35% of all returns. The ambiguity in using the term “deportation” has caused confusion in both political and media circles. Notably, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak corrected a similar claim last year.
Despite repeated requests, Labour MPs Mike Tapp and Preet Kaur Gill – who also used the “deported” terminology – have yet to clarify their remarks.
Netflix’s Adolescence: Truth or fiction?
A flurry of online discussion has suggested that Netflix’s recent drama Adolescence is based on a true story – and that the programme inaccurately portrays the race of the real-life individual.
The show, which centres around a 13-year-old boy accused of murder, has faced criticism and speculation that the original case involved a Black child, while the on-screen portrayal features a white actor.
Kemi Badenoch, Conservative Party leader, added to the speculation during an April interview, stating she believed the “real” boy was not white.
However, these claims don’t hold up under scrutiny. Co-creator and actor Stephen Graham said the story was inspired by several real-life tragedies, not a single case. He referenced incidents in Liverpool, Croydon, and the murder of Brianna Ghey in Warrington.
Fellow creator Jack Thorne was unequivocal during a podcast interview in March: “There is no part of this that’s based on a true story, not one single part.” He also refuted suggestions of a “race swap”, explaining the team was sensitive to the ethics of fictionalising real-life trauma.
While social media posts linked Adolescence to the case of Hassan Sentamu, a teenager jailed for murdering a 15-year-old girl in Croydon, no official confirmation has connected the show to this or any other specific incident.
We have reached out to Mrs Badenoch for further comment but have yet to receive a response.
More Read
Are British taxpayers footing the bill for a Pakistani airport?
A widely shared post on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that British MPs signed a letter supporting the construction of an airport in Pakistan using UK taxpayer money. One post with over 1,500 shares read: “Look who signed a letter to build on British taxpayers’ money an airport in Pakistan…. Why should we pay?”
This is misleading. The letter in question, sent to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, was signed by a cross-party group of British MPs and peers expressing support for the development of an international airport in Mirpur.
Crucially, it does not call for the project to be funded by British taxpayers, nor does it suggest any financial commitment from the UK Government.
Labour MP Mohammad Yasin, whose office was listed on the letterhead, clarified to Full Fact: “It was clearly addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and does not suggest, as some have falsely claimed, that UK taxpayer money should be spent on this project.”
There is no evidence to support the claim that any British public funds are being considered or allocated for the airport’s construction.
Verdict: From misused immigration data to misleading entertainment rumours and misrepresented international affairs, this week’s fact check highlights the importance of verifying information before sharing or repeating it. Misinterpretation can easily blur the lines between truth and speculation – and that’s where Full Fact steps in.
