A British Turkish Cypriot has filed a formal complaint with Ofcom and challenged ITV over its handling of a controversy surrounding references to the “Turkish” and “Greek” sides of Cyprus in an episode of Coronation Street.
Abdullah Suleyman has accused the broadcaster of effectively “erasing” Turkish Cypriots after ITV Studios apologised following complaints about dialogue in the long-running soap, arguing that the broadcaster’s response elevated one community’s objections without acknowledging the existence or perspective of the island’s Turkish Cypriot population.
The row started after an episode of Coronation Street, broadcast on 6 August, referred to the “Turkish” and “Greek” sides of Cyprus.
The National Federation of Cypriots in the UK subsequently complained to ITV chief executive Dame Carolyn McCall. ITV Studios apologised, saying the language used had been “imprecise” and had caused upset, and stated that the script had not intended to imply equivalence between the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus and North Cyprus.
“We are a human population with a homeland, a language, and a living community of hundreds of thousands in the United Kingdom. We are not an inconvenience to be swept away”
The apology itself has now prompted a counter-complaint from Suleyman, who argues that the broadcaster sought to resolve Greek Cypriot objections by adopting language that effectively invalidated a Turkish Cypriot description of their own homeland.
In his initial letter to ITV on 27 August, Suleyman said the apology did not read to him as a “neutral correction”, but as “a public signal that the very mention of Turkish Cypriots on British television is something to be regretted, walked back, and tidied out of the script”.
He added: “We are a human population with a homeland, a language, and a living community of hundreds of thousands in the United Kingdom. We are not an inconvenience to be swept away.”
Suleyman argues that the dispute raises a wider issue about whose interpretation of Cyprus British broadcasters regard as legitimate.
“Most people in the UK have limited knowledge of Cyprus. That is precisely why a broadcaster of ITV’s reach carries a duty of care here,” he wrote, claiming ITV’s apology risked legitimising narratives that “deny our identity, dismiss our history, and treat our community as an embarrassment to be corrected off the screen”.
ITV: apology was for upset caused by dialogue
ITV responded to Suleyman on 28 August through Iain MacLeod, Creative Director for Continuing Drama at ITV Studios.
MacLeod said the broadcaster had apologised after receiving complaints from viewers about the dialogue “in the same way we would apologise to any viewer who had been offended by something in one of our programmes”.
He added that editorial decisions were taken “on a programme-by-programme, subject-by-subject basis” and that ITV ensured relevant legal and regulatory requirements were observed.
“When a national broadcaster publicly apologises for the acknowledgement of a Turkish side of Cyprus, without naming the Turkish Cypriot people, it does not simply correct a script — it teaches its audience that our presence is the error.”
MacLeod also told Suleyman that those working within ITV’s Continuing Drama label were now “acutely aware of the historical and geopolitical sensitivities” surrounding Cyprus and that this would inform any future references to the island and the issues surrounding it.
Suleyman welcomed that assurance but said it failed to address his central complaint, which concerned ITV Studios’ public apology, rather than whether Coronation Street writers would exercise greater care in future.
In a follow-up letter, he wrote: “When a national broadcaster publicly apologises for the acknowledgement of a Turkish side of Cyprus, without naming the Turkish Cypriot people, it does not simply correct a script — it teaches its audience that our presence is the error.”
He described this as “dehumanisation” carried out through language, while stressing that he was not accusing ITV of deliberately seeking to harm or erase Turkish Cypriots.
“I am not accusing ITV of intending this,” Suleyman wrote. “I am telling you, as a British Turkish Cypriot, that ITV’s statement participates in it.”
‘Were any Turkish Cypriots consulted?’
At the heart of Suleyman’s correspondence are four questions that he says ITV has yet to answer.
He wants the broadcaster to disclose whether any Turkish Cypriot employees, community organisations or subject specialists were consulted before ITV Studios issued its apology.
He is also asking ITV to explain how it will ensure Turkish Cypriot viewers are “seen, named and represented, rather than apologised out of existence”, and wants a commitment that Turkish Cypriot organisations will be consulted when future complaints involving Cyprus arise.
His fourth request is for ITV to issue a further public statement acknowledging “the existence, history and lived experience of Turkish Cypriots” and recognising that Cyprus is a subject on which there is “more than one legitimate perspective”.
Suleyman has asked for his complaint to be escalated beyond ITV Studios to ITV plc’s Editorial Policy and Standards, Compliance, and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion functions.
In his latest correspondence, he also asks ITV to confirm who is responsible for dealing with the escalated complaint and under what internal reference it is being handled.
Complaint lodged with Ofcom
The British Turkish Cypriot has meanwhile told ITV that he has submitted a separate complaint to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, citing Sections Two, covering Harm and Offence, and Five, concerning Due Impartiality, of the Broadcasting Code.
Importantly, Suleyman says his complaint is directed at ITV Studios’ public statement, not the original Coronation Street dialogue. He says the complaint has been logged by Ofcom.
It remains to be seen whether Ofcom will take up the matter and launch an investigation.
Suleyman’s original complaint ends with a stark message to ITV: “We are a people. We are not a mistake in the script. I ask ITV to reflect on that, and to correct it publicly.”
