• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Telegraph Misrepresents Ofcom Ruling Against Mark Steyn

by Will Jones
6 March 2023 1:17 PM

In reporting about the Ofcom ruling against GB News host Mark Steyn this morning, the Telegraph has managed to misrepresent the reason for the breach, and in doing so wrongly make it appear that to suggest problems with the vaccines is against Ofcom rules.

The Telegraph report states that: “TV regulator Ofcom ruled Mr Steyn had broken the rules when he suggested there may be a link between the vaccination and ‘higher infection, hospitalisation and death rates’.” (my italics)

However, both the Ofcom ruling and the accompanying story on the website are completely clear that the breach, which occurred during an episode of the Mark Steyn Show broadcast in April 2022, was a result of claiming that “official UKHSA data provided definitive evidence of a causal link between receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine and higher infection, hospitalisation and death rates” (my italics). Not because he simply “suggested there may be a link”.

Here is the how the Ofcom website story opens:

We have been consistently clear that, under our rules, broadcasters are free to transmit programmes which may be considered controversial and challenging, or which question statistics or other evidence produced by governments or other official sources. It can clearly be in the public interest to do so. However, with this editorial freedom comes an obligation to ensure that, when portraying factual matters, audiences are not materially misled.

In this case, our investigation found that an episode of the Mark Steyn programme fell short of these standards – not because it exercised its editorial freedom to challenge mainstream narratives around COVID-19 vaccination – but because, in doing so, it presented a materially misleading interpretation of official data without sufficient challenge or counterweight, risking harm to viewers.

Specifically, the programme incorrectly claimed that official UKHSA data provided definitive evidence of a causal link between receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine and higher infection, hospitalisation and death rates.

It goes on to stress that Ofcom took into account “the definitive way in which the misleading interpretation of the data was presented” as well as the failure to note confounders in the data.

The Telegraph provides the above quote from Ofcom but cuts it off before the key final sentence, leaving the reader none the wiser about the report’s misrepresentation of the Ofcom ruling as being merely about “suggesting there may be” a link.

A GB News spokesman said the channel was “disappointed by Ofcom’s finding”.

Our role in media is to ask tough questions, point out inconsistencies in Government policy, and hold public bodies to account when the facts justify it. Mark Steyn’s programme did exactly that. We support his right to challenge the status quo by examining the small but evident risks of the third Covid booster. In our 20 months and more than 11,000 hours of live broadcasting, this is Ofcom’s only finding against our television licence. It has not imposed a sanction.

As news stories in the last week have highlighted, it was prescient to question whether the Government was candid with all the facts. It is an important story in the public interest.

Mr. Steyn looked at evidence from the Government’s own health data. He drew a reasonable conclusion from the facts. However, he drew only one conclusion. We accept that the data offered several valid interpretations, and he should have made this clear. Had he done so, the story would have remained within the wide freedoms that Ofcom’s Broadcast Code allows.

This is important because, whatever you think of Ofcom’s rules and this decision, it is essential that what they are is correctly reported and understood to avoid undue suppression of legitimate debate. Ofcom itself is keen to stress as much, stating that “broadcasters are free to transmit programmes which may be considered controversial and challenging, or which question statistics or other evidence produced by governments or other official sources” and that the ruling was not because GB News “exercised its editorial freedom to challenge mainstream narratives around COVID-19 vaccination”.

The ruling, rather, was because Steyn did so in too definitive a way, despite the data having known confounders (e.g. age, health) that meant definitive conclusions could not be drawn from them. You may disagree with the decision – either the substance or whether it should be deemed serious enough to constitute being “materially misleading” – or you may agree with it. But either way, it is crucial that what the decision was is reported accurately, so that the legitimate and important debate about pandemic vaccination policy and other controversial interventions is not stifled.

Tags: CensorshipCOVID-19Free SpeechGB NewsMark SteynTelegraphVaccine

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Putting Europe’s Energy Crisis into Perspective

Next Post

The Conspiracy of ‘Pandemic Preparedness’

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Leary #KBF
James Leary #KBF
2 years ago

Whichever way you slice that, Will, like the plod regularly does, the government needs to report itself to the authorities (Ofcom) for misleading and just plain untrue representations of the facts.

218
0
NeilParkin
NeilParkin
2 years ago

The statistics demand further investigation. Not everyone who died, died because of vaccines. Not everyone who didin’t die, survived because of the vaccines. Of course the former is a conspiracy theory, the latter is ‘Science’. Its right that both should be scrutinised and discussed, as more and more data appears and more and more insights come from it.

82
0
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
2 years ago

I complained to OfCom four weeks ago about misinformation broadcast on a BBC programme in January 2022. I might have to wait a year or more to find out if they rule against the BBC presenter. Here is a copy of my complaint:

Programme title:
The Nolan Show

Date you watched, heard, downloaded or streamed programme:
10/01/2022

Time of broadcast (24 hour clock):
09:00

BBC Channel/ station/ website/ app on which the programme was seen or heard:
BBC Radio Ulster

Subject:
The BBC presenter Stephen Nolan and the Northern Ireland Chief Medical Officer massively scare-mongered listeners with blatant misinformation about the Omicron variant and misled listeners about the Covid booster vaccines.

Description of original complaint:
Original complaint: 

Here is a transcript of a segment of an interview with the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland, between 1hr 6m and 1hr 10m into the Nolan Show: 

Nolan: “Let me make sure I’’m understanding those figures: You talked about a 50% protection there, after how many months?” 

Professor McBride: “That’s after six months with two doses of the vaccine.” 

Nolan: “So if you come across Omicron, if you’’ve had two doses and you haven’’t had your booster, you’’ve a 50-50 chance if you get Omicron of ending up in hospital, is that what you’’re saying?” 

Professor McBride: “That’’s correct, that’’s correct.” 

Nolan: “Wow!…” 

…Nolan: “With all due respect to you, and, you know, anything I say this morning, I think if we can drum home the message to people listening this morning, if you’’ve had two doses of the vaccine, and you haven’’t had the booster, if you get Omicron you’’ve got a 50-50 chance of ending up in hospital. That is an incredible statement and it punches through, it’’s easy to understand.” 

Professor McBride: “It is. I mean, look, I mean quite simply, two doses of the vaccine isn’’t sufficient…”.”

This is scandalous scaremongering misinformation. If Nolan wasn’t deliberately lying and later realised that he had broadcast misinformation – encouraged by the Chief Medical Officer who incredibly claimed Nolan was correct, then he should understand that he has a moral and hopefully a legal duty to correct the misinformation, but he has never done so. He should broadcast a correction to the thousands of listeners he has misled on such an important issue on his show. The editor should apologise for allowing this misinformation to be broadcast by Nolan, and given credence by such an authoritative figure as the Chief Medical Officer, without ever correcting the misinformation. 

Reason for dissatisfaction with the outcome of the BBC’s final response:

I complained to the BBC 10 days after this massive misinformation was broadcast, after there had been no correction made on any of the subsequent 7 Nolan Shows. The response I eventually received from the BBC, on 11 February, was extremely inadequate, merely saying: “And we were able to clarify all of this in a subsequent programme…””

But their correction was vague – Nolan never had the Chief Medical Officer back on to correct what he had said – and thus the very brief and vague correction, which was near the end of one of his programmes, was not made with the same authority or emphasis, and it was a few weeks too late, the damage had been done. I complained again, and the final email I received from the BBC was on 13 April apologising for not yet being able to reply to my complaint, and that was the last I heard from the BBC about my complaint. 

175
0
Boomer Bloke
Boomer Bloke
2 years ago
Reply to  godknowsimgood

That’s the same @$$hat quack (McBride) that I emailed after he approved the administration of the bio toxic jabs to children. Asking for his resignation in the face of the risk/benefit calculation for an infection that most children have had already, and if they do get it the symptoms are in the overwhelming majority of cases mild. He declined to answer.

75
0
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
2 years ago
Reply to  Boomer Bloke

I not only emailed Professor McBride with a question, but I also sent him the same question by post, with a stamped addressed envelope enclosed, in September 2021, and I never got any reply. Here is the question I asked:

“This question is for the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Michael McBride, or the most relevant and available expert to answer my question:

In recent months I have seen that an unscientific survey on the ME Association website suggests that about 80% of M.E./CFS sufferers who were vaccinated with the Covid vaccines reported no problems whatsoever, but about 10% of M.E./CFS sufferers reported severe and ongoing reactions to the Covid vaccines.

Can you tell me if M.E./CFS sufferers are more likely than average to suffer serious and ongoing adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines, and can you send me any relevant reliable data concerning M.E./CFS and Covid vaccination?
Thank you.”

I also sent the same email to the other three UK Chief Medical Officers, and I eventually got a reply from representatives for each of them. However, the replies were all bland reassurances that the vaccines are safe and never addressed my specific question.

48
0
thelightcavalry
thelightcavalry
2 years ago

This is a 1-way standard though. There’ve been innumerable definitives on the virtues of vaccines, all proven false, none so adjudicated by Ofcom.

124
0
TheBasicMind
TheBasicMind
2 years ago

Actually, I’m slightly surprised by the Ofcom ruling. I have become so cynical and I am so used to blatant imbalance, and I love the way Mark Steyn has been challenging the narrative. So I was fully expecting to be outraged by the Ofcom ruling. But (and I know this won’t be a popular statement on here) I am surprised to find their judgement to be actually quite reasonable.

Two caveats:

  1. – I don’t think we really should have a regulatory system as Ofcom enshrines in the first place.
  2. – They need to issue similar rulings against Government and establishment media for misinformation.

However since we do have the Ofcom system, within that system, this judgement isn’t too bad. I remember watching a Mark Steyn show, and I think this is the one complained about, where, unfortunately, he did actually quite badly mangle the stats. He failed to appreciate Simpson’s paradox and clearly failed to understand you can’t legitimately compare overall percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations unless they are broken down by sufficiently granular age groupings. He then didn’t properly retract the error in the subsequent couple of shows. This was extremely frustrating because I know there are issues with the vaccines, but I also know Steyn made a mistake in analysis on this occasion and had simply handed ammunition to those who call anyone questioning the vaccines a conspiracy theorist and a quack.

Unfortunately Steyn had not at that time yet been introduced to professor Norman Fenton, who had done a proper statistical analysis and was able to demonstrate the proper analytical basis on which the vaccines can be said to be bad. Fenton is quite sure, but still does properly qualify his analysis as indicative. He is experienced and professional enough to know that with statistics it is rare that such assertions can be made with 100% certainty. Frustrating because knowledge is also qualified by secondary and tertiary sources, but at the end of the day, it is the proper and scientific way to proceed.

Knowing the vaccines were bad, but not for reasons based on the data Steyn was giving was super frustrating!

Last edited 2 years ago by TheBasicMind
58
-6
thelightcavalry
thelightcavalry
2 years ago
Reply to  TheBasicMind

I like this critique, but your 2 caveats are vastly more significant than noticing that Steyn’s essentially correct conclusion derives from slightly sloppy reasoning.

21
0
JXB
JXB
2 years ago
Reply to  TheBasicMind

It’s not reasonable when they are passing opinions on ‘risk’ to viewers.

They are not qualified to make that determination.

9
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
2 years ago

Ofcom should exist to regulate technical stuff to do with the broadcast spectrum, not content. We do not need a content regulator. You can design any system you want and it will get captured by whoever has the most power at the time and used to further their own ends.

Gosh – a mainstream newspaper misrepresenting a story to do with problems with the vaccines – who would have thought it?

62
0
thelightcavalry
thelightcavalry
2 years ago

The comments on the DT story were disappeared. I had commented:
“This should be the lead story not tucked away in small type. Of course there may be a link because there’s strong correlation between excess deaths and vaccination. Moreover the correlation is wordwide. Moreover there’s at least one proven mechanism. Presumably the DT wants to downplay the story because of its own collaboration with the vaccine fanatics.”

66
0
7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago
Reply to  thelightcavalry

And because they have been and probably continue to be paid to promote tha view espoused by thw Government.

14
0
Occams Pangolin Pie
Occams Pangolin Pie
2 years ago

The Telegraph doesn’t want people knowing that Ofcom rules (supposedly) would allow them to present balanced articles on vaccine injury, vaccine efficacy, mask studies. They want to say ‘They wouldn’t let us!’. It’s clear they chose not to pursue journalism but spout pitiful propaganda funded by us, the taxpayer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It’s certainly getting warmer for some.

52
0
DomH75
DomH75
2 years ago
Reply to  Occams Pangolin Pie

Yes, the B&M Gates Foundation grant at the Telegraph is astonishing. The Telegraph has been on the market for a couple of years now. I’m surprised no one has bought it. It really needs a wealthy conservative, libertarian American owner!

36
0
DomH75
DomH75
2 years ago

OFCOM is dodgy, regardless: it has way too much power and its rules are written far too broadly, leaving the wide open to ‘interpretation’. They should be abolished and replaced with something closer to the old IBA. The boss of OFCOM was at the WEF shindig a few weeks ago, so that makes her suspect from the outset.

55
0
RW
RW
2 years ago

So that’s OFCOM censoring Steyn (actually, punishing his employer) because he publically declared to be of a certain opinion regarding the interpretation of some set of statistics while other people had (and have) other opinions about that?

27
0
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
2 years ago
Reply to  RW

Ofcom actually haven’t really punished GB News, and you could look on it as ”No publicity is bad publicity” or “There’s only one thing worse than being talked about and that’s not being talked about”.

“Ofcom said it was not imposing a fine or other sanction.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64862979

6
-4
Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
2 years ago

Does the Telegraph say that Mark Steyn corrected this apparent error the next day and brought Jamie Jenkins from the Office of National Statistics onto the show

Has anyone been fined for saying the Covid jabs are “safe & effective”?

Don’t rely on the Fakeshott Media to get the true message out 

Wednesday 8th March 11am to 12pm 
Yellow Freedom Boards 
Junction A327 Arborfield Rd & 
Eastern Relief Rd, Shinfield, 
Wokingham RG2 9EA

68
-1
thelightcavalry
thelightcavalry
2 years ago
Reply to  Lockdown Sceptic

Important info.

22
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
2 years ago
Reply to  Lockdown Sceptic

Yes, just what I was suggesting in my reply a few minutes ago. Jamie is not currently with the ONS, if he were then no doubt their output would be far better constructed.

10
0
barrososBuboes
barrososBuboes
2 years ago
Reply to  Tyrbiter

when data goes against the vax narrative the ons obfuscates.

13
0
Free Lemming
Free Lemming
2 years ago

So where are all the rulings against all the media outlets shouting about the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine? 100% ‘safe and effective’ at one point from what I remember. All the media outlets saying myocarditis and other health issues caused by the ‘vaccine’ were just ‘conspiracies’. Lies, lies, lies. Constant brazen bullsh*t. Ofcom’s response? Absolutely nothing. If anyone still believes that the system is not corrupt to the core then their living in cloud cuckoo land.

85
0
JASA
JASA
2 years ago
Reply to  Free Lemming

Indeed or Dr Sara Kayat on This Morning with Phillip Schofield who said that after 12 days you are 100% effective against hospitalisation and death. Clearly meaning protected, because it doesn’t make sense otherwise.

34
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
2 years ago

Perhaps the correct way forward is to repeat the episode with assistance from people like Prof Norman Fenton, Joel Smalley, Jamie Jenkins etc. who can more accurately explain why the statistics are actually very bad instead of Mark being a bit too definitive in his statements.

Naturally other statisticians are available, including ones from the ONS who can be pulled up on air about their very poor and obfuscated reports that make real analysis very difficult.

21
0
JXB
JXB
2 years ago

I wonder from whom Ofcom got the ‘correct’ interpretation of the UKHSA data – from the UKHSA may I presume?

The UKHSA stoppe reporting its data because some people were using it to reach the wrong conclusions – translation: not saying what we want them to say.

I have seen a number of analyses of UKHSA data and data from other Countries which leave no doubt booster doses increase infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths.

29
0
JXB
JXB
2 years ago

‘… risking harm to viewers.’

How can Ofcom know this?

28
0
EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
2 years ago

Why is OFCOM micro managing programmes by Mark Steyn whereas outrageously misl;eading or simply incorrect statements by the BBC are OK, apparently. There is an implication in the OFCOM judgement that every programme has to be balanced and fair but such a standard is not applied to the BBC or other main media channels. It is widely observed that BBC uses highly partisan interviewees and wholly excludes GMGW and Covid sceptics of one sort and another.

57
0
7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Of course this has been going on for years with the BBC’s beloved Glowbull Warming scam.

Look up the details of “28Gate”, where the BBC set up a meeting of “28 of the UK’s Top Scientists” to set out the policy of specifically only broadcasting the alarmist position and NOT broadcasting alternative viewpoints; no matter from the most well qualified and authoritive Scientists. And irrespective of their Charter insisting on balance.

They refused to reveal who these UK “top scientist attendees” were and used two eminent QCs to argue the case.

Later, the attendance list was discovered on the web and proved that just two attendees were “scientists” by any definition, and they were the ‘activist’ type. All the rest were from various GangGreen groups, Fiends of the Earth, Greenpiss and so on. Plus an odd vicar and even a spook from the US Embassy.

Needless to say, nothing has changed other than the only dissent the BBC permits, nay encourages, is from those who, on climate, ruinable energy, veganism, lockdowns, vaccines, insist we need Sooner! Harder! Longer!

And Ofcom is delighted, at every step, to suck it all up!

23
0
TheGreenAcres
TheGreenAcres
2 years ago

Looking forward to OFCOM ruling on Devi Sridhar’s claims – aimed at children and teenagers – on the BBC , that the vaccines where ‘100% safe’

I’ll wait.

32
0
CHRIS
CHRIS
2 years ago

The fact of the matter is that Ofcom believed in their ruling so much that they were too embarrassed to levy a fine on GB News or Mark Steyn. The crux of what Mark Steyn said was and is true. The fact remains that the COVID jabs are just that…JABS. They’re not “vaccines” under any reasonable interpretation of the word.

28
0
Corky Ringspot
Corky Ringspot
2 years ago

I don’t think Will Jones is wrong to make this overall point – Steyn admirer though I be. Confounders do exist, even though we sensible people know perfectly well that Mark is right. What baffles me more than anything is Ofcom’s belief – as it is the belief of so many out there – that the public stand to be “harmed” by this particular representation of the facts. Harmed. Harmed how? What is this pale, weedy material that human beings are now made of, according to people like Ofcom? How do they think that this sentimental vulnerability has crept into our constitutions? I’m reminded of the way the markets are influenced by public opinion, which is influenced by the pundits, who are influenced by the markets, which are influenced by public opinion, which is influenced by pundits, which which which, on and on ad nauseam. Very depressing.

16
0
mikkip
mikkip
2 years ago

The article above this one explains how the msm will never change (ie become
impartial and carry out their role of talking truth to power) and yet this article tries to confront the msm as if they made an oversight in good faith. What it proves is that in fact the Telegraph is as bad as the rest and the whole Hancock scandal is limited hangout and a way to manage the narrative…

10
0
lojolondon
lojolondon
2 years ago

I did NOT expect to see this justification of Ofcom on the Sceptic!!

It has been proudly boasted by the BBC that for the last decade, they refuse to “balance” reporting on climate because “the science is settled”. If this article is at all accurate,I guess that Ofcom will be looking into 10 years of not providing balance.

Or is it the case that “some viewpoints more equal than others”??

9
0
varmint
varmint
2 years ago
Reply to  lojolondon

The BBC bias is unequivocal. —-Israel is bad but Palestine is good. Trump is bad but Obama is good. Climate Change is real but deniers are a disgrace. etc etc.—– Journalists approach stories with an open mind, but the minds of activists are already made up and that is what BBC and SKY are.—-Activists. —-Presentation of the facts is crucial in how a story is interpreted by the public. The Investigative journalist includes all of the facts. The activist selects the facts he wants and omits the bits he doesn’t want therefore presenting a particular narrative. —–In your example mainstream media talk of “settled science”, when infact there is no such thing. This gives the public the idea that all aspects of the climate issue is decided and all scientists agree that the science is well understood, when the reality is that all scientists do not agree and the science is not well understood at all.

Last edited 2 years ago by varmint
6
0
Epi
Epi
2 years ago

The government get away with lie after lie after lie broadcast relentlessly my the MSM and what happens? Double standards here I believe.

8
0
varmint
varmint
2 years ago

Where is OFCOM when BBC and SKY talk of the “Climate Emergency” and insist on calling it “Science”? —- “Climate Emergency” is the language of politics not science. Why are we endlessly bombarded with tales of a “Climate Crisis” when there is absolutely not one shred of evidence there is one. Mainstream News channels speak of the “Climate Emergency” like it was something we can all see in front of us like a pillar box or a Ford Fiesta. No one can see this “Climate Emergency”. It is scaremongering in support of politics. The politics of the United Nations Sustainable Development. ——-Without there being a “Climate Crisis” this whole political agenda collapses. The public are being played and OFCOM say NOTHING.

15
0
RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

So is OFCOM penalising the likes of the BBC for NOT allowing questions about the safety and efficacy of the jabs to be aired?

No, of course not. The only places where any kind of debate has taken place are GB News and TalkTV. And OFCOM would shut them down if they had any kind of excuse to do it.

12
0
SomersetHoops
SomersetHoops
2 years ago

Surely the best way for Ofcom to have dealt with this would have been to give Steyn the opportunity to broadcast a retraction of the definitiveness of his comment and clarify that there are other factors that could explain the apparent data connections. The result of the harshness of Ofcom’s reaction is that Steyn has lost his job, GB News has been adversely effected by some loss of audience and the country has lost the voice of a normally outstandingly honest broadcaster. My suggested response by Ofcom would then be no different from similar events that occur within the output of printed newspapers

I would like to add that the government broadcasts during Covid contained so much more deliberately dishonest or biased information. Where were Ofcom in dealing with them?

Last edited 2 years ago by SomersetHoops
10
0
zombieapocalypse
zombieapocalypse
2 years ago

I’ve cancelled my BBC license, disconnected the dish and put the money towards joining the Mark Steyn Club. Mark’s treatment by Ofcom has been biased and disgraceful. Even the support from certain free speech advocates of this parish has left a lot to be desired. I’m now watching the Mark Steyn Show instead of GB News. My media consumption is restricted to ONLY that which Ofcom has no censorship power over.

0
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

50

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

19

News Round-Up

19

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

17

Starmer’s Palestine Action Ban Could Be Breaking International Law, Says UN

11

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

POSTS BY DATE

March 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Feb   Apr »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

March 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Feb   Apr »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

50

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

19

News Round-Up

19

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

17

Starmer’s Palestine Action Ban Could Be Breaking International Law, Says UN

11

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences