Towards the end of last year, Laura Dodsworth and I complained to Ofcom about a collaboration between Sky U.K. and the Behavioural Insights Team – then part-owned by the Cabinet Office – to use “behavioural science principles”, including subliminal messaging, to encourage viewers to endorse and comply with the Government’s ‘Net Zero’ agenda. That is, Sky bragged about joining forces with a unit that was part-owned by the U.K. Government to use covert psychological techniques to try to persuade viewers to endorse one of the U.K. Government’s most politically contentious policies – and encouraged other broadcasters to do the same! Alarmingly, the joint report by Sky and the BIT also recommended broadcasters utilise these same covert techniques to change the behaviour of children “because of the important influence they have on the attitude and behaviours of their parents”.
In our complaint, Laura and I argued this was a breach of Ofcom’s Broadcasting code – in particular, paragraph 11 of section two, entitled ‘Harm and Offence’:
Broadcasters must not use techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred.
Now, two months later, Ofcom has replied, effectively dismissing the complaint. You can read the full reply beneath our original complaint here, but this is the gist of it:
In the Guidance we outline that, among other things, whether an issue has “been broadly settled […] and whether the issue has already been scientifically established” should inform a broadcaster’s consideration of whether the special impartiality requirements in the Code apply to a particular issue. In our Guidance, we identify the scientific principles behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming as an example of an issue which we considered to be broadly settled. On this basis, we do not consider these principles in themselves to be matters of political or industrial controversy for the purposes of Section Five of our Code.
In other words, using covert psychological methods to persuade viewers to endorse climate change dogma and adapt their behaviour accordingly, e.g. switch to electric cars, is not a breach of the Broadcasting Code because the science of anthropogenic global warming is “broadly settled” and “scientifically established”.
What about the fact that many of the behavioural changes Sky is trying to persuade viewers to make also happen to be changes the current Government is promoting under the banner of ‘Net Zero’? On that point, Ofcom is slightly more ambivalent, leaving the door open to another complaint:
The U.K. Government’s position on net zero covers a wide range of policy areas around which there may be a degree of controversy. Policies on how governments deal with crises or controversies in general can be a “matter or major matter of political controversy or relating to current public policy”, even if the U.K. Government has a settled policy position on it. It is possible, depending on the specific content and context, that a broadcast programme containing discussion of specific net zero policy decisions by the UK Government may engage Section Five of the Code, and require consideration under the special impartiality rules.
Ofcom goes on to say that it has raised our complaint with Sky, but has been assured by Sky’s response, and for that reason, among others, won’t be taking our complaint any further:
Turning to your complaint, you did not identify any specific programmes broadcast by Sky which you considered to be in breach of the Code. As I have explained, Ofcom is a post-transmission broadcast regulator and as such, does not usually consider general complaints about a broadcaster’s policies. On this occasion, we drew Sky’s attention to your complaint. Sky has assured us that they retain full control of all editorial broadcast content on their channels, and they are aware of their obligations under the Code.
It is also important to note that, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues across the board, including topics related to net zero policies. As set out above, a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression can only be subject to restrictions which are in pursuit of legitimate aims, in accordance with the law, necessary, and proportionate. We must exercise our regulatory functions in a way which is compatible with those rights, and in line with our regulatory principles.
For these reasons, in light of the assurances given by Sky, and in the absence of a complaint about specific broadcast content, there are no grounds for opening an investigation into Sky’s editorial policies and general organisational strategy related to net zero carbon emissions under the Code.
Accordingly, we will not be taking any further action in relation to the general matters which you raised with us about Sky. However, if you do wish to make a complaint about a specific programme that you consider raises issues under the Code, then you can do this by submitting a complaint on Ofcom’s website.
Disappointingly, at no point does Ofcom address our concern about Sky’s use of covert psychological techniques to prosecute its green agenda or its intention to use these methods to bend the minds of children.
Needless to say, Laura and I have no intention of letting the matter drop. If you see a programme on Sky that you think uses covert psychological methods to brainwash you (or your children) into accepting ‘Net Zero’ gobbledegook please bring it to our attention by emailing us here.
You can subscribe to Laura’s Substack newsletter here.
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.
Let’s supposed everyone acted like Coutts and refused to provide service to those who don’t adhere to what is clearly a pre-established way of thinking.
Does that mean the supermarket should stop selling to Farange, so he couldn’t buy groceries anywhere? Should all the petrol stations stop serving him? The train companies and airlines would obviously have to stop selling him tickets. Restaurants should ban him.
If everyone took the same high and mighty stance that Coutts did (and the other banks who refused him an account subsequently), then he could effectively be cancelled from life.
And if they don’t, does that mean that they are socially irresponsible for not imposing the right belief system? I guess that is what proponents of ESG, DEI, CSR and all the bullshit actually must believe.
When the left’s ideas are taken to their logical end, you end up with grotesque totalitarianism. That’s if you get there and don’t get driven to insanity first, if you can survive the trans lunacy, the climate lunacy and all the other waypoints to their totalitarian hell.
This creates great opportunities for businesses who don’t discriminate in this way. In fact, new businesses such as Public Square (https://publicsq.com/in-the-news) and other unwoke companies in the US are expanding massively by taking advantage of this very opportunity.
It is a belief system without any conviction from its adherents. I doubt whether the individuals in those banks actually believe 100% in the righteousness of their stance but they do it because it looks good to everyone else doing the same thing.
Of course CBDCs are the ultimate wet dream since they absolve all the banks and businesses of any responsibility whatsoever in terms of transactions, since it’s out of their hands – and there is nowhere one can take one’s complaints. If this had happened – and I’m sure it has – to someone less high profile than Nigel Farage, then that person would still be languishing in the social doldrums, cancelled from society.
We heard about the Canadian truckers’ bank accounts being “frozen”. Does anyone know if they were ever “unfrozen”?
A spotlight needs to be shone on the creepy companies that trawl personal data, build profiles on us all and sell these profiles to the banks amongst others.
Swamp banks with subject access requests to find out.
They’ll just stop replying.
People have been given a legitimate reason to ask so they can’t be readily dismissed. Unlike FOI, it can’t be conveniently categorised as “malicious”.
Non-response requires the regulator to take action.
If the regulator doesn’t take action that poses its own questions.
Your last thought has a precedent. MHRA were swamped by COVID vaccine yellow cards, so they simply excluded them from analysis because they upset the pattern.
This is a different process. It requires data to be provided to the requestor. Yellow Cards is more of a black hole.
I’m not suggesting that people would receive a response or that the regulator would take action. It’s what should happen and if it doesn’t it highlights yet more issues.
As soon as Poland’s GDP gets to the point where they would have to become a contributor to rather than recipient of EU largess, they will Pexit, if not before.
With most of Europe destroying itself through mass immigration of economic migrants from Islamic countries and the imposition of net zero madness, countries like Poland and Hungary stand out as beacons of common sense and hope.
Not when you see their foreign policy viz the war on their borders..
Please expand / explain…
Meant to reply to you and replied to myself instead…The fog of war and all that.
US Army stakes out permanent presence in Poland with ‘Camp K’ | Stars and Stripes
Russia-Ukraine war live: US-supplied cluster bombs ‘having an impact’ on Russian defences, Washington says (theguardian.com)
Poking the bear is not standing out as beacons of common sense and hope IMO.
Their right as a nation to do what they want.
Hungary too. They are constantly flipping the finger at the EU PTBs
Spent a month in Budapest last year, getting my teeth fixed. Fantastic job, cost maybe 1/3r of what I’d pay over here. Fell in love with Budapest, and were I 21 and 71 I’d be out there in a shot. This is the Great Market, down near the river. If you are a meat lover (my wife and I are Carnivores) it’s a place to go!
“Broadcaster Jon Sopel has issued an apology to Nigel Farage after previously poking fun at the former UKIP leader’s cancelled account with bank Coutts,”
I know he’s not apologising to me, but apology not accepted. How can it be a sincere apology?
““Nigel Farage: Coutts owner apologises for ‘inappropriate’ claims” – In a letter to the former UKIP leader, Dame Alison Rose insisted the assessment of Mr. Farage “does not reflect the views of the bank”, reports the Times.”
Again she is not apologising to me, but apology not accepted. Of course the assessment reflects the views of the bank – the bank bloody produced it, no doubt following their own policies. How can it be a sincere apology?
In both cases, they’ve been caught red-handed, underestimated who they were dealing with and the public reaction.
The Sopel apology includes a dig at the BBC for producing mis-information.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1681970843675443200
Thanks – that is interesting. Perhaps his apology is sincere.
“Scientists think they’ve cracked the secret of Covid ‘super-dodgers’”
This article tries to indicate that this genetic immunity is rare by stating;
”Only about one in ten people within the general population are believed to have the genes offering them this form of protection. ”
But surely 1 in 10 = 10% ? which in the UK equates to 7 million people. If the article had in fact said ” 7 million people in the UK are believed to have this genetic immunity” it would have had a different ring to it but then that might be seen as playing down the significance of covid and TPTB’s over-reaction to it.
“people who got Covid never got ill…” Suggests that the Mail article is oxymoronic. How can one have a disease without being ill? However, if they were more accurate (I know it’s the Mail), they might have said that most of those that got Covid were not seriously ill. Wouldn’t sell very well, perhaps.
Yes. Covid is the disease, not the bug. A large bunch of people were exposed to the bug and never developed the disease; it happens all the time with other bugs.
One’s body can detox without any overt symptoms of detox & it is these products being excreted from cells that the PCR tests assess for the presence of. Very easy for a casedemic to be manufactured in this way.
Well, if microwave exposure causes the same set of symptoms labelled as covid in susceptible individuals prior to the bioweapon injection rollout, then it’s not going to be a transmissible disease.
If this is the case, then no virus exists so the lab leak theory is just a major diversion & no “vaccine” was ever going to be effective against microwave radiation.
There is a temporal association between every major influenza epidemic & an increase in the EMF exposure of the planet.
Beverly Rubik, whose work I have come across via MD4CE zoom meetings, gives an explanation in this Rumble video.
https://rumble.com/v30y8oi-adverse-health-effects-of-wireless-communication-radiation-by-berverly-rubi.html
The Comments section in the Daily Mail article about suggested genetic predisposition to immunity is encouraging.
I’ll take my chances with the risks from the disease rather than those of the jab!
That’s a sad indictment isn’t it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Other Interests are frustrated that their JSO protestors had not yet achieved martyrdom due to an irate driver. Perhaps their view of human nature isn’t the same as that of the majority.
The JSO speaker in the video was correct on one key point though: “this government does not have our best interests at heart”.
In the above article we find
Er, no. Where’s the evidence of this?
Then we get:
OK so we’re not eviscerating kids yet (though we seem to be encouraging them to have their ‘bits’ mutilated (reminds me of FGM outrage)), but we are sacrificing their future well-being on the altar of Green alarmism.
“Just Stop Just Stop Oil” my response to these entitled dweebs. As a paid up member of the middle classes, they are a disgrace to said middle class!
ps. W no more choose our class than we do our parents…
Reminds me of the song:
I’ve danced with a man, who’s danced with a girl, who’s danced with the Prince of Wales.