Farage Demands Apology After Labour Minister Says He is on the Side of Predators like Jimmy Savile for Wanting to Scrap Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns
Nigel Farage has demanded an apology from Labour Minister Peter Kyle after he accused him of taking the side of paedophiles like Jimmy Savile for wanting to scrap the Online Safety Act over free speech concerns. The Mail has more.
Nigel Farage furiously demanded an apology from a senior Labour minister today after being accused of taking the side of sick paedophiles like Jimmy Savile in a deepening row over an online safety law.
Peter Kyle also accused the Reform UK leader of being on the side of “extreme pornographers” over the party’s pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act over claims it stifles free speech.
The Technology Secretary made the astonishing outburst as he defended the law, which came into effect last Friday and requires social media sites and search engines to take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content like pornography.
Critics including Mr Farage claim that it is being used to stifle free speech by blocking people from seeing some political statements online, especially those by Right-wing figures.
But Mr Kyle told Sky News he had seen no evidence that the Online Safety Act “goes too far”.
He added: “I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.
“Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he’d be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he’s on their side.”
Mr Farage labelled the comments “disgusting” and demanded an apology. But Mr Kyle later doubled down on his remarks.
Appearing on GB News the Minister said: “There is no definitive grey area about this.
“Either you’re on the side of predators and paedophiles, as Nigel Farage is, because he wants them to have more access to our children online than you are with the Labour Party, where we are making sure we are holding the tech companies to account to prevent that kind of access, to keep children safer, and we can do so also at the time of also reinforcing freedom.'”
In a later broadcast from Reform UK’s London headquarters, Mr Farage played back Peter Kyle’s comments, adding: “Well this is so absolutely disgusting that it’s almost beyond belief. Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation?
“Yes, of course they’re in trouble. They’re well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it’s so below the belt it’s almost not true.”
Former BBC television presenter and DJ Savile, who died aged 84 in 2011, is believed to have been one of Britain’s most prolific paedophiles, whose crimes went undiscovered or unchallenged for decades.
Asked to clarify his comments, Mr Kyle said: “Nigel Farage is on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults, strangers can get in touch via messaging apps with children.”
Reform UK would scrap the Online Safety Act as a “dystopian” infringement of free speech, the party announced yesterday.
During the press conference, Mr Farage acknowledged that his party did not have “a perfect answer” for what could replace the Act, but said his party had “more access to some of the best tech brains, not just in the country but in the world” and would “make a much better job of it”.
Former party chairman Zia Yusuf said the Act, intended to reduce online harm, did “absolutely nothing to protect children’ but worked to ‘suppress freedom of speech” and “force social media companies to censor anti-government speech”.
Addressing a press conference at Reform’s headquarters in Westminster, Mr Yusuf said: “We will repeal this Act as one of the first things a Reform government does.”
The intervention came after it emerged that X blocked a powerful speech on grooming gangs by Tory shadow minister Katie Lam in Parliament this year.
Meanwhile, footage of arrests during asylum seeker hotel protests was also blocked “due to local laws”, according to the social media platform.
Worth reading in full.
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.
Another boost for Reform.
Just wow…Talk about plumbing the depths. Peter Kyle is a weapons-grade arse-weasel. So anyone who is pro-free speech is now a paedo-sympathizer? The only people on the side of Savile were those at the BBC. I can imagine the likes of Huw Edwards going round his house for a ‘cup of tea’ more than once or twice; ”@peterkyle Don’t insult our intelligence with your sanctimonious PR checklist. Every item you’ve listed – detecting abuse content, blocking grooming, hiding profiles, filtering porn – was already technically feasible before your Act. Platforms like YouTube, Meta, and TikTok were already using AI tools, hash-matching databases like PhotoDNA, and user-report systems to flag and remove illegal material. If they failed to act, that was an enforcement problem – not a legislative one. You didn’t need to write a censorship charter to fix that. But what your Online Safety Act does is something else entirely. It doesn’t just go after illegal content. It goes after legal, uncomfortable, inconvenient truth. It casts a wide, vague net over so-called “harmful” material – even if that material is factual, journalistic, political, or historically significant. Let’s get specific. Under your Act: Katie Lam’s parliamentary speech exposing grooming gangs is… Read more »
well said.
Good detective work by Charlotte: ‘The Europe that Gay Porn built, 1945 – 2000’;
”Peter Kyle’s department funds this btw
If you want to watch porn, remember to get a £840k taxpayer-funded grant.
To explain: Kyle’s department, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, funds the UKRI, which funds the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which funds gay porn studies.”
https://x.com/CharlotteCGill/status/1950117238121369691
Very well put.
All internet communication platforms I’m aware have mechanisms for blocking online contact with people one doesn’t want to have any contact with and all have some form of abuse reporting and they had this already a long time before Labour deemed it necessary to protect people from the evil internet.
Under this law we the public would be ignorant of the Torture rape gangs, ignorant of the details surrounding the murder of little girls at last years dance class, ignorant of any wrong doing involving rape etc by an MP.
Its nothing to do with the protection of children if it were they would have confronted each and every facilitator and cover up artist as well as the people involved in the rape, torture and murder of little white girls, they would have purged the Police , the councils, social services, the judiciary and politicians involved. If they cared about the safety of children they would have done this years ago, but theyr didn’t and they have’nt. We see them, and they know we see them, and as with all autocratic, tyrants, they will double down on their methods, but the gig is up. Labour will be out on its ear within the next 12 months.
spot on, if people want to alert others that something fishy is going on it’s inevitable that words will have to be used which will trigger censorship and or surveillance. So discussion will be reduced and no doubt increase criminal activity.
The real criminals will go underground, if they are not already, and the government will simply be policing the ordinary person. Britain will become a pariah state which will make the Soviet Union look pretty benign.
As an aside I know many people who suffered very badly under communism and one said to me, and I quote, “if these systems were in place during the Soviet period we would not have stood a chance”.
Well done Mogs. I’d like to copy & paste your concise comment to my almost useless MP, if that’s okay?
If Peter Kyle thinks something even remotely resembling Saville’s crimes could be committed online he has – at the very least – only a very faint grasp on reality as he apparently cannot distinguish between talking to someone about something from the safety of a home that somene cannot access and getting violently assaulted and physically sexually abused by someone.
But this doesn’t seem very probable. In reality, it’s probably more that he badly wants to censor perfectly legitimate communication he considers to be politically disagreeable and will – without being troubled by anything resembling common decency or a conscience – resort to any lie he deems helpful for accomplishing that.
Dear Labour party. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself if you had any capacity for that.
Grooming gangs or as they should be called paedophile, rape, torture, murder gangs, allowed free rein by Labour controlled councils, covered up, gaslighted and criminalised little girls and their parents. An inquiry forced on them, it hasnt happened yet, and we know it will be so managed that Labours community will not be held to account.
Keir Starmer DPP didn’t prosecute Savile
Murder of little girls by a Welsh choirboy who turned out to be quite the opposite, covered up by Starmer and co, meanwhile Parents who protested called far right.
Likewise the current protests outside the Hotels of migrants who have been accused of abuse of young girls, they are far right too.
Strikes me that there is very obvious evidence about which Party is most definitely not interested in protecting children from harm, its the Labour Party, what they are really interested in is keeping the British tax payer from seeing the results of their policies to destroy the British and their country. For them, the children are just collateral damage.
‘Pakistani Rape Gangs’ is now the correct terminology.
Yes, if these laws were in place the Labour Party would have avoided detection in their cover up.Now in future these things will be filtered out, either that or people will have to resort to other means to protect themselves.
Nigel should sue Kyle.
Well, before the invention of the WWW, remember what the BBC did with the likes of Savile, Rolf Harris etc. A fair bit was swept under the carpet, wasn’t it?
Yes, but dangerous Literally Hitlers couldn’t write hurty tweets on the 6pm News Bulletin.
Sad that Reform feel the need to say they may need to replace the act with something else. I think a decent government could do the most good by spending a few years repealing legislation from the past 50-75 years and not doing anything new.
Absolutely.
Labour minister makes unbelievably crass, offensive and ignorant remarks… par for the course really.
Obviously destined for the top of the greasy pole.
And where would you sugest that the top the greasy pole is inserted?
I wouldn’t bother with the grease.
And if Goebbels was still alive today Kyle would be his right hand man.
More likely he would be Lavrenty Beria’s.
There’s a name I didn’t know, until now, thanks EoSS
My suspicion is that Peter Kyle defended the (Labour) law and took a swipe at Nigel Farage at the same time. Self serving perhaps?
Maybe I misunderstand you but the Saville’s crimes could not have been committed online as they required physical contact with the victims. Further, there’s no reason to assume that someone utilizing his status as BBC celebrity and children’s entertainer for sexual abuse of children would prefer to do something else online instead. Why take a roundabout route towards the henhouse when you’re the fox which is already inside of it? Kyle can really only claim that he believes a future Saville who wouldn’t work at the BBC would contact children online instead of, like the groomers did, chat them up at the local McDondald’s. But that’s – at best – just an unsubstantiated belief of him as no such case has made any waves yet despite the supposed Online Safety Bill didn’t exist until very recently while the internet has been a widely used technology for almost 20 years now. But there’s really no reason to believe that he’s being honest. As soon as people come up with “We must save the children !!1”, all alarm bells should go off because that’s a tell-tale sign of someone trying to slip something nefarious through using a justification no right-thinking person could… Read more »
Mr F isn’t a Catholic.
When it comes to denouncing “predators and paedophiles” the Labour Party need to remember to STFU given their record.
There is a lot of criticism of this, it seems likely that service providers will have to be extremely cautious in case their services are compromised. As far as I can find out the security of services will have to be lowered in order to allow scanning of such services which will actually result in less protection. Many people are turning to VPNs which I understand will give some protection. But the overall effect seems to be that many companies will be reluctant to provide services in the UK.
It does seem strange that the government are now making life more difficult for people to go about their business freely but at the same time have spent years covering up many crimes which their say they are trying to prevent.
I wonder how we can now hold the government to account because people will be scared to interact with each other. Stasi Starmer has struck again Comrades.
Harriet Harman – supported the Paedophile Information Exchange
Two-Tier – failed to prosecute Saville
Labour – permitted Rape Gangs to operate for decades, allegedly in exchange for votes
Labour – importing tens of thousands of violent misogynists, many of whom go on to rape or sexually attack women and young girls
Labour – uses the HRA to protect the rights of paedophiles
There is one party which supports paedophiles. The one Kyle represents.
The online safety act is the death of free speech. It’s as simple as that. There are plenty of laws preventing children from harm and we don’t need laws telling adults what they can or can not say to each other. Orwell only got one thing wrong, the chosen date for the title. But too late now, we are gradually being sucked into his word and sadly very few will even notice.
Peter Kyle : “There is no definitive grey area about this.”?! Idiotic thing to say! If it was definitive then it wouldn’t be grey.
I loathe people who believe that if you’re not for me then against me with no intelligence used that there IS a grey area.
Presenting conclusions – children “at risk” from on-line pornography without any corroborative evidence such scale of “problem”, such as how prevalent is child viewing of pornography, how many children watch it what is the effect – is the typical unfalsifiable claims made by power and control freaks and those who want to introduce restrictions without having to prove their case.
It sets up any who challenge to attack: So you don’t want to keep our children safe! They also invoke the precautionary principle, even if we can’t demonstrate the extent of the problem, and cannot say how successful it will be, best not to take the risk.
Given the behaviour of these people with the Pakistani, Muslim child rapes, their behaviour to children during CoVid, allowing so-called gender changing in young children, allowing freaks and pædophiles to go into schools and groom young children, and allow pornographic displays on the streets during “pride” parades which children can watch, saying they care about child safety is a lie to cover up their true intent – censorship.
Garbage.