Several outlets ran the same story the past weekend. They used the same source. None of them, on the published record, appears to have checked it.
@TheSun on Sunday led with "Taking the Shish", under a byline from reporter
@thomasgodfreyuk.
@GBNEWS picked it up within hours, and GB News presenter
@Alexarmstrong fronted a video on the street, asking on camera: "What skills do you need to work in a kebab shop that requires you to import people into Britain?".
So far, so familiar. Here is what the published coverage does not surface.
The source:
Behind all three pieces sits the Centre for Migration Control. It calls itself a think tank. Companies House lists it as Athelney Campaigns Ltd, a for-profit private company with one director: Robert Bates, who volunteered for Reform UK at the 2024 general election, as
@GoodLawProject has reported.
There is no published donor list. No academic staff. No peer-reviewed research.
@bylinetimes places the operation within the Tufton Street-adjacent pressure-group network.
@GoodLawProject and
@bylinetimes have both documented a recurring pattern: CMC supplies anti-migrant statistical claims, right-wing outlets carry them, Reform politicians cite the resulting articles back as independent research. On the visible record this weekend, that pattern looks to me to have produced this story.
The missing denominator:
The figure being recycled is 159 kebab shops with sponsor licences. Home Office data, analysed by the Work Rights Centre in March 2026, put the Register of Licensed Sponsors at 123,911 active sponsors at the end of December 2025, climbing past 125,600 by early 2026.
159 out of 125,600. That is 0.13%. One in roughly 790. None of the three pieces, on their published versions, places the headline figure against the denominator.
The missing rule:
The "chain migration" framing carries most of the political weight. It also collapses the moment you read the visa conditions.
Skilled worker visas are issued with a no recourse to public funds condition. The worker, the spouse and any children cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, social housing or homelessness assistance.
They pay the Immigration Health Surcharge at £1,035 per person per year for NHS access. They pay full income tax and National Insurance. Their sponsoring employer pays an Immigration Skills Charge of up to £1,000 per worker per year.
These are net fiscal contributors to a welfare system they are legally barred from using. None of the three pieces, on their published versions, appears to mention any of this.
What journalism would have done:
On the supposed standards these outlets profess to hold, three things at minimum.
1) Placed 159 against 125,600.
2) Noted the NRPF condition before invoking "chain migration".
3) Asked who funds Athelney Campaigns Ltd, and on what cadence its FOI-driven outputs reach friendly papers.
The published coverage does not appear to do any of these three.
People, in my view, can draw their own conclusions about why, as it is apparent, isn't it?