“2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services and BBC ODPS so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.”
“2.2: Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.”
“To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied in the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.”
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“21. The fundamental right of free expression has been recognised at common law for very many years…Modern democratic government means government of the people by the people for the people. But there can be no government by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for and against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments. The business of government is not an activity about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and express opinions. It is, or should be, a participatory process… 22…The European Court of Human Rights for its part has not wavered in asserting the fundamental nature of this right. In paragraph 52 of its judgment in Vogt v Germany(1995) 21 EHRR 205 the court said: ‘The court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning article 10: ‘…Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual's self-fulfilment. Subject to article 10(2), it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”
“[T]he methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably, depending among other things on the media in question. It is not for this Court, nor for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists. In this context the Court recalls that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed.”
“We present data on COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status. This raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does not take into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations”
“In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non Covid-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with Covid-19 rather than because of Covid-19. ”
“Rule 2.2 is therefore concerned with the misrepresentation of facts and whether factual matters have been misrepresented in a way which materially misleads viewers. This is particularly important in factual programmes, such as current affairs programmes or programmes of an investigative nature, as the level of audience trust and the audience’s expectation that such programmes will not be materially misleading is likely to be higher.”
“broadcasters are free to broadcast programming which present controversial or critical comments concerning the policies and actions of the Government or of public health bodies in accordance with their rights and the rights of their audiences to freedom of expression. However, in doing so, broadcasters must ensure, in accordance with Rule 2.2, that programmes dealing with factual matters do not materially mislead the audience.”
“So, we have two groups of similar size. 31, 32 million. So, it’s relatively easy to weigh the merits of the third shot upon group A vs group B…”
“We matched these numbers across all age groups. So, the point is, an 80-year-old with a booster shot is more likely to die than an 80-year-old without a booster shot. And likewise, a 30-year-old with the booster shot is more likely to die than a 30-year-old without a booster shot”; and “There’s 32 million who had the third booster shot, there’s 31 million who didn’t. So, we can directly compare the numbers, overall numbers, because they’re the same size. So, if you got the booster shot, you’re dying at three times the rate of the people who didn’t get the booster shot”
“If the booster shot is making it more, thrice as likely that you’re going to [die], why aren’t we talking about that?”; and “Now we’ve designed a booster shot that kills almost four times as many old people if you get this shot, as if you don’t. The third shot not only has no efficacy, it increases your chances of hospitalisation and death”. “The third shot was clearly a shot too far that has damaged the immune systems of many people and made them less able to resist infection and death”; and “it’s not just that they’re useless, it’s that you’re more likely to be infected, you’re more likely to be hospitalised overnight and you’re more likely to be dead”; and “Those zombies who [follow] Government spokespersons, have injected themselves with something that increases their likelihood of infection, hospitalisation and death.”
“Consistent with this information provided in the original UKHSA reports, but not included in this programme, Ofcom took account of the fundamental biases within the two groups that Mark Steyn compared. For example, at the time of broadcast, in every age-group over 70, triple-vaccination rates were estimated to be more than 90%. In younger age groups, they were significantly lower, with all age groups under 40 at less than 50%. The rates for young adults and children were even lower with less than 10% of 16 to under 18s and less than 0.5% of under 16s having received a third dose of the vaccine. Therefore, in the two groups that Mark Steyn said could be directly compared (i.e. those that had and those that had not had a third Covid-19 vaccination) one included far larger numbers of older people. The simple comparison between the two groups made by Mark Steyn failed to take into account these inherent biases and, for example, the fact that older people are more likely to die or be hospitalised than younger people (emphasis added).”
“I think to be fair you have to take other factors into account. People are dying with Covid not of Covid. Older people are generally more likely to die of any cause.”
“Ofcom acknowledged that policies to manage the spread of the virus had undoubtedly evolved over the course of the pandemic, but considered that at the time of broadcast the vaccination programme had not come to an end and the potential for harm remained…A significant proportion of the population was yet to receive a third vaccination and the statements broadcast in this programme could result in viewers making important decisions about their health based on misleading information. Moreover, although the urgency of the Covid vaccination programme had diminished, the [10 April statistics] found that immunity declined over time and that Spring boosters were recommended for the elderly, care home residents and immunosuppressed individuals aged 12 or over. These vulnerable individuals have a higher risk of contracting severe Covid and as such, the decision as to whether or not to take up a booster vaccine might carry significant health implications. Ofcom considered that, notwithstanding the status of the pandemic, viewers needed to be able to make properly informed choices about vaccination and that broadcasting misleading claims of this nature might prevent them from doing so”
“It is clearly in the public interest to scrutinise information of this nature, provided programming is compliant with the Code, specifically that the portrayals of factual matters are not materially misleading. However, in this case, Ofcom considered that this programme incorrectly claimed that official UKHSA data provided definitive evidence that there was a causal link between receiving the third Covid-19 booster vaccine and higher infection, hospitalisation and death rates. This was misleading because the programme failed to reflect that the reports made clear that the raw data contained within them should not be used to draw conclusions about vaccine efficacy, due to the biases inherent in those in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Given the content was broadcast as part of a factual programme on a news and current affairs service, and may have resulted in viewers making important decisions about their own health, we found that the programme was materially misleading and in breach of Rule 2.2 of the Code.”
“We accept that Dr Wolf expressed herself in forceful terms and in a way which might have upset some viewers and listeners but we believe she was entitled to do that in the circumstances and that we were justified in broadcasting it by the context we have set out above. Dr Wolf is a Jewish woman and believed that the reference to the actions of doctors in the early days of Nazi Germany was not excessive and a reasonable comparison with the situation faced today. Similarly, she expressed strong views that the handling of the Covid epidemic had threatened the stability and future safety of the West. Dr Wolf’s strongly stated views were not aimed at individuals or at any named organisation so no one could have been ‘harmed’ by her words. They were a general expression of her own strongly held opinions including her anger and concern that the course of events over the past two years had been exceptionally damaging for populations and western values and security. They were her opinion, nothing more, nothing less”
“We agree with Ofcom’s position that the presence of an ‘appropriately wide range of significant views’ provides context and an element of audience protection when controversial matters are being discussed, and we accept that such a range of views was absent in this case. It seems clear to us that if an alternative view had been provided in the programme, it is more than likely that Ofcom would have come to a different conclusion in its Preliminary View. But it is still our view that only minimal harm could have been caused by this broadcast… Our position remains that the programme did not breach the Ofcom Code. We welcome Ofcom’s continued assertion that no subject is too controversial or unpalatable to be aired with appropriate context and will continue to broadcast programmes on that basis”
“It was the doctors in pre-Nazi Germany in the early thirties who were co-opted by the National Socialists and sent to do exactly what we’re seeing kind of replaying now…;” and “This is why I believe these are bioweapons because they are literally sterilising people. I mean, it's not surprising, a mass, you know, a mass murder has taken place”; and “This is a massive crime. Of course they want to sweep it under the rug because a mass murder has not just taken place. It is still taking place, disabling people into the future, sterilising the next generation”; and “So the reason I say mass murder with such calmness is that if, if, and not only that the FDA [i.e. the USA’s federal drug agency] knew, because at the bottom of these documents, it says ‘FDA confidential’…They knew three months in that 1200 people were dead, four of them the day they were injected, and they kept going. They knew in April of last year that children's hearts were being damaged a week after the injection and they kept going”
“In particular, we took into account that there was an absence of any opposing views, challenge or proper contextualisation, which further served to reinforce her authority and the credibility of her claims. As set out above, the presenter at points agreed with Naomi Wolf and appeared to endorse her as a credible expert”
“We considered the claims – in particular that the vaccine rollout was a pre-meditated crime ie ‘mass murder’ – amounted to the promotion of a serious, unchallenged conspiracy theory which was presented with authority. These claims had the potential to impact on viewers’ decisions about their health and were therefore potentially harmful. As a result, it was incumbent upon the Licensee, when broadcasting such content, to include adequate audience protection, in accordance with Rule 2.1. ”
“Ofcom considered that the interview with Naomi Wolf contained claims which amounted to the promotion of a serious, unchallenged conspiracy theory which was presented with authority. We were particularly concerned about the significant and alarming claim that ‘mass murder’ was taking place through the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccinations which she repeated three times.These claims had the potential to impact on viewers’ decisions about their health and were therefore potentially harmful. In accordance with Rule 2.1, the Licensee should have ensured that Naomi Wolf’s potentially harmful comments were challenged or otherwise contextualised to provide adequate protection for the audience, which they were not. Ofcom further took account of the fact that these claims were broadcast on a regulated service as part of a factual programme on a current affairs channel. Taking all the above factors into account, Ofcom did not consider that the programme included adequate protection for viewers from the inclusion of potentially harmful material and it was therefore in breach of Rule 2.1”
“I and my friend Naomi Wolf…are fortunate in that neither of us live in the UK. For the effect of these ‘convictions’ has been utterly to kill our careers in the British Isles, and to see crude defamations of us recycled throughout the London papers as if they have the force of criminal convictions.”
“The material I described to Mark Steyn is not my work. I am a nonfiction writer and journalist. I am not a medical doctor or a scientist. The material I presented is from scientific reports compiled by 3250 highly credentialed doctors and scientists… that convened from 2021 to the present, to read through and issue reports based on the 450,000 internal documents released under court order due to a successful lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration by US attorney Aaron Siri. These are internal Pfizer documents submitted to the FDA for the purpose of securing the Emergency Use Authorization that allowed for the rollout in the US of an experimental injection that bypassed normal trials. They are primarily internal documents produced by Pfizer [ie the manufacturer of the vaccine], that date from November 2020 to February 2021 and that record that 43,000 plus adverse events and more than 1220 deaths recorded by Pfizer in those three months… Ofcom seeks to portray this material as ‘harmful.’ But can findings be ‘harmful’ if they are true? I am a reporter and base my opinion on facts. The Reports’ accuracy is not in doubt. They have been published on hundreds of news outlets globally for nearly three years…”
“when determining whether the words complained of contain allegations of fact or opinion, the court will be guided by the following points: (i) The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact. (ii) Opinion is something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc. (iii) The ultimate question is how the word would strike the ordinary reasonable reader. The subject matter and context of the words may be an important indicator of whether they are fact or opinion. (iv) Some statements which are, by their nature and appearance opinion, are nevertheless treated as statements of fact where, for instance, the opinion implies that a claimant has done something but does not indicate what that something is, i e the statement is a bare comment. (v) Whether an allegation that someone has acted ‘dishonestly’ or ‘criminally’ is an allegation of fact or expression of opinion will very much depend upon context. There is no fixed rule that a statement that someone has been dishonest must be treated as an allegation of fact.”
“We recognise that some programming may include material that has the potential to be harmful or offensive. This puts a responsibility on the broadcaster [i.e. the licensee] to take steps to provide adequate protection for the audience…”
“In previous investigations under Rule 2.1, Ofcom has identified claims or advice in programmes about viewers’ and listeners’ health or wealth as being potentially harmful. These have included, for example, statements that specific products, practices or activities will result in various benefits to health or wealth. This kind of content has also sometimes been accompanied by dismissive or derogatory comments about more conventional treatments or advice. Health or wealth claims could be especially harmful to people who are vulnerable, for example, those who are suffering from serious medical conditions, or are in serious financial difficulty, who may be more susceptible to these messages. Programmes including health or wealth claims and advice may be broadcast, as long as broadcasters provide adequate protection for viewers or listeners from any potentially harmful content. Ofcom must seek an appropriate balance between ensuring members of the public are adequately protected from potentially harmful material, and the broadcaster’s and audience’s right to freedom of expression, as set out inArticle 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights …”
“If potentially harmful claims about health and wealth are made by a speaker who is perceived by the audience as having authority, then there is more chance of them treating those claims as credible and making decisions based on them. The kinds of figures who might possess such authority will depend on the context, but could include a well-known or popular presenter… or anyone presented as an expert”
“We recognise that licensees will continue to want to broadcast content relating to the Coronavirus and that dissemination of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences will be essential during the current situation. However, we remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by material relating to the Coronavirus. This could include: • Health claims related to the virus which may be harmful. • Medical advice which may be harmful. • Accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it. In light of the serious and rapidly developing nature of the Coronavirus pandemic and the associated significant risk to public health there is a particular need for factual statements about Coronavirus to be presented with appropriate care, given the ongoing significant national and international concern about the crisis.”