Ofcom Accused of “Orwellian” Assault on Free Speech After Launching Probes into Climate Sceptic Comments for First Time in a Decade
Ofcom stands accused of an “Orwellian” assault on free speech after launching probes into climate sceptic comments for the first time in almost a decade. The Mail has the story.
The media regulator originally decided not to investigate complaints over remarks about climate change on two programmes aired by TV channel Talk last year.
But it announced a dramatic U-turn after being lobbied by pro-transgender rights and climate activist campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP).
One complaint related to comments made by a Talk guest who said on a programme in November that climate change “was a deliberate effort to create fake anxiety… out of something that is false”.
In the second case, also in November, another guest said Labour’s energy policies were “suicidal”, “driven by pseudoscience in many cases” and “a kind of cultish behaviour”.
On one of the programmes, a UK Health Security Agency report into the potential mental health impacts of concerns about climate change was being discussed alongside the Government’s messaging over the issue.
The other featured a discussion relating to the potential impact of climate change and Net Zero policies on the UK population.
After the GLP wrote to Ofcom in January asking it to justify its initial ruling not to investigate, the regulator U-turned. It said a potential breach of rules of the broadcasting code around “due impartiality” and “material misleadingness” required “reconsideration”.
It also launched a probe into a new complaint over comments made about Labour’s energy and Net Zero policies on the Morning Glory with Jeremy Kyle programme in December.
The three probes are the first the broadcasting regulator has launched into alleged climate-sceptic comments on television and radio since 2017.
Ofcom stuck by its decision not to investigate complaints about climate comments on three other programmes.
Lord Young of Acton, boss of the Free Speech Union, said: “I’m astonished Ofcom has U-turned on this.
“These are clearly complaints submitted by climate activists seeking to weaponise the regulator to silence people with opposing points of view.
“The pretence that the science of global warming is ‘settled’ and anyone who challenges any aspect of the environmentalist agenda, including Net Zero, is a ‘denier’, has long been a tactic of climate alarmists to silence dissent.
“Ofcom should continue to treat these complaints as vexatious and dismiss them, as it has done since 2017.”
Tory peer Lord Mackinlay of Richborough added: “Ofcom runs the risk of becoming an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ – truly dangerous ground in a supposed democratic society.
“All science evolves and should be given the free space to do so.
“Even the BBC is undertaking a ‘thematic review’ of its own climate reporting, acknowledging excessive and hyperbolic alarmism.
“As a libertarian Conservative I take a simplistic view of broadcasting output – if I don’t like what I’m listening to or watching, I simply turn it off.
“We should perhaps do the same to Ofcom, saving millions of pounds on the closure of this unloved, out of control quango.”
According to the Guardian, Ofcom has received 1,221 complaints related to climate change since January 2020, with none resulting in a ruling that the broadcasting code was breached.
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.
To be fair, if Maugham is bringing the case, its chances of success are slight, the man’s a serial loser, quite how he manages to keep getting so much from crowd-funding vexatious litigation is baffling.
He is very successful at making money with this grift.
The bottomless pockets of the Far Left billionaire philantropists helps no doubt.
Those Ofcom “impartiality” criteria in full:
a) Which side has all the money?
b) Which side has all the power?
c) Which side pays our salaries?
d) Which view corresponds to the views of (a), (b) and (c)?
Any other views aired are not “impartial”, just “mIsInFoRmAtIoN”.
Just following orders!
What is needed is Office For Freedom in UK – Offuk.
Nice one!
And law on basic Human Responsibilities to counter those on Human Rights.
Good Law Project? A misnomer, I think!
The Utter Shite Law project, based on grift and stupidity.
Headed by the lawyer who boasted that he was wearing his wife’s kimono [sic] when he beat a fox to death in his garden.
Don’t you just love living in a Western Liberal Democracy
Actually no, the word Liberal corrupts all it touches.
Has there actually been a challenge in court to prove that c02 actually can cause the damage it’s claimed to?
It doesn’t need proof because it’s “settled science”.
Or even a categorical definition of it’s optimal level?
The trouble is with the Far Left having infected the judiciary to such a huge extent, getting the contrary evidence to be accepted in court is a challenge. Of course it could be that the Far Left Good Law Project have to provide the evidence where there is a simple question – name the scientific paper that proves beyond doubt that CO causes global warming. If it existed we would all know its name…but it doesn’t.
very frustrating that this online ‘magazine’ gets so few views and comments – the formula is somehow wrong.
I am sure it gets the views. The change in the comment policy (only available to subscribers) has reduced popular comments from upwards of a hundred to a couple of dozen in very rare cases.
I left the Telegraph because commenting among thousands felt like barking at the wind. I would prefer newest comments to appear first, though.
You can alter the order. Top right of comments section, drop down box.
Ofcom is investigating the telling of the truth?
OfCom is not “at risk” of becoming a propaganda outfit for it is that already. The latest move suggests to me that higher bonuses are planned.
Ah, it’s the kimono-clad fox murderer again. I do so hope that a) he loses and b) all his money flows down the drain.
Sod off Maugham, no one wants to hear anything more about you.
Theoretical speculation generated in a computer program which can be fine tuned to say anything you want is not ‘ the science’
Maugham is a gift to lazy people….. if he supports it I know I don’t.