Inside the GB News newsroom. Picture: Press Gazette
GB News has been given the green light to challenge a finding that it breached Ofcom’s rules in a Q&A programme with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak.
A High Court judge did refuse to temporarily block Ofcom from sanctioning the channel, but said the watchdog has already pledged not to publish its sanction until the case has been heard in full.
Its potential sanctions include: telling a broadcaster not to repeat certain content, forcing it to air a correction or statement of the Ofcom findings, a financial penalty, and ultimately shortening, suspending or revoking a broadcast licence.
The sanctions process began after Ofcom decided that an hour-long live programme called The People’s Forum, in which Sunak answered audience questions, failed to meet impartiality rules because the then-PM was not sufficiently challenged.
Advertisement
Thanks for subscribing.
GB News had intended for Labour’s views to be represented in a follow-up programme with Sir Keir Starmer but this had not been announced publicly at the time of the Sunak Q&A and it was then cancelled after Ofcom’s intervention.
Barristers for GB News argued that the publication of the sanction would cause “irreparable damage” to its reputation.
In a ruling on Friday Mr Justice Chamberlain said that the “likely impact” on the channel had been “overstated”.
He did however give the channel the green light to challenge the finding that it had breached Ofcom’s rules in the High Court, and added that Ofcom has already pledged not to publish its sanction until the case had been heard.
Advertisement
Giving judgment at a hearing in London, the judge said: “There is significant public interest in allowing Ofcom to complete its process and publish its decision.”
He continued that the benefits of pausing the sanctions process were “firmly outweighed” by allowing it to continue, which he said would “promote public confidence” and “reinforce the importance of complying with the code”.
But he said that GB News’s case was “reasonably arguable” and its arguments “raise grounds of considerable public importance” which “should be considered at a substantive hearing”.
Tom Hickman KC, for GB News, argued on Thursday that Ofcom had unlawfully found that the breach was “serious and repeated”, and that deciding on and publishing a sanction during the legal challenge would cause “irreparable damage”.
Advertisement
Anya Proops KC, for Ofcom, said in written submissions that the breach was the channel’s twelfth since March last year and that it was “not arguable” that it had “erred in law” through its decision.
She continued that the bid to stop Ofcom from publishing the sanction was based on an “inevitably speculative presumption” of what the sanction would be, and that claims the channel would suffer reputational harm “do not withstand scrutiny”.
A further hearing in the case is expected to be held at a later date.
GB News chief executive Angelos Frangopoulos said in response to the ruling: “We are extremely pleased the Court has recognised the merits of our legal challenge and approved our case to proceed to the next stage.
Advertisement
“We have believed from the very start that the People’s Forum was an important piece of public interest programming, and that it complied with the Broadcasting Code. It was designed to allow members of the public to put their own questions directly to leading politicians. The programme with the Prime Minister was always intended to be part of a series of programmes, unfortunately the commencement by Ofcom of an investigation into the programme meant that future programmes were suspended and could not be broadcast.
“GB News choses to be regulated and we understand our obligations under the Code, but Ofcom is obliged by law to uphold freedom of expression and apply its rules fairly and lawfully. We believe some of its decisions in relation to GB News have been neither fair nor lawful and the court has recognised that there are serious arguable issues to be determined in this respect. As the People’s Channel we will continue to champion freedom; for our viewers, for our listeners, and for everyone in the United Kingdom.
“The Court has also made clear that any sanction which Ofcom may go on to impose on GB News would need to be expressed as subject to the outcome of GB News’ legal challenge.”
Advertisement
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog
The UK government is chartering another flight for British nationals to leave Lebanon on Sunday, as it urges people to exit the country which is gripped by conflict.
More than 250 UK citizens have already left on chartered flights. As of Friday morning, more than 2,000 British nationals had registered their presence in the country, the Foreign Office said.
The flight will be the fourth specially organised by the government. British nationals who have registered their presence will be sent details on how to request a seat.
The Foreign Office said there were no more scheduled flights because of a “decrease in demand”. However, the situation will be kept under constant review.
Advertisement
It said three flights had already been chartered to help British nationals leave.
The number of people telling the UK government they are in Lebanon should be treated with caution because British nationals do not have to register their presence there.
“Based on our contacts so far, we also anticipate that only a fraction want to leave due to their strong ties in the country,” the Foreign Office added.
Some have been able to leave on commercial flights but said empty seats were hard to find.
Advertisement
The Foreign Office earlier said it was working to increase capacity on commercial flights for British nationals, and that around 700 troops and government staff had been deployed to Cyprus for “contingency planning”.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urged British nationals still in the country to come forward to be evacuated, saying: “Now is the time to leave, we have got the plans in place.”
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “The situation in Lebanon remains volatile, so I am glad that we have helped the many people who have heeded our advice to leave the country immediately.
“With demand falling, and the security situation deteriorating, there is no guarantee other options to leave quickly will become available. I urge anyone who wants to leave to register now.”
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
One of England’s most senior judges is leaving his role as president of the UK’s influential Competition Appeal Tribunal, two months after he was reprimanded for sending an ‘inappropriate’ letter to a junior member of staff.
Sir Marcus Smith is stepping down as president of the CAT, the venue for class action lawsuits against some of the world’s largest companies including Apple, Google and Mastercard, at the end of his three-year term, which is not being renewed.
Advertisement
His predecessor, Sir Peter Roth, who held the position for about eight years, is to reassume the position on a temporary basis while a permanent replacement is found. Roth’s predecessor, Sir Gerald Barling, was in the role for about six years.
Smith’s departure comes after the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (Jico), which deals with complaints against judges, said in August that he had been reprimanded for serious misconduct after his communications with a staff member left her feeling “distressed” and “angry”.
The reprimand, issued by the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and approved by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and justice secretary, was the most serious sanction short of removal from office, the Jico said.
In his response to the complaint, Smith acknowledged that the letter was “plainly inappropriate” and had caused significant emotional distress, according to the Jico.
Advertisement
He had “been ignoring warning signs about his workload and health” and said the letter was a “poorly framed attempt to reach out for support and to discuss his problem”, the office said at the time. He gave an assurance that there would be no repeat of such behaviour.
Smith, who remains a High Court judge, declined through the Judicial Office to comment on his departure from the CAT.
In a brief statement this week, the CAT said the president’s term of office would end on November 4. A spokesperson confirmed that it could be renewed, with the appointment handled by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The CAT, established in 2003, has since become one of the UK’s most important venues for disputes. They include a wave of class action claims filed on behalf of consumers who complain companies have abused dominant positions.
The agreement will allow Virgin customers on flights from the US and Canada to connect through Heathrow and Manchester onto Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, Stavanger and Bergen
A HOMESICK expat flew 690 miles to the UK for a stay of less than three hours — just to have a Nando’s.
Mark Rofe, 34, yearned for their trademark peri-peri chicken and had no interest in seeing family or friends during the whirlwind trip.
6
Mark Rofe flew 690 miles to the UK for a stay of less than three hours — just to have a Nando’sCredit: Jam Press Vid
6
Advertisement
Mark yearned for their trademark peri-peri chicken and had no interest in seeing family or friends during the whirlwind tripCredit: Jam Press
6
Mark said: ‘Nando’s has a place in my heart, and my belly’Credit: Jam Press
He flew from Barcelona to land at Gatwick Airport at 1.50pm on Wednesday — heading immediately to the chain’s restaurant in the South Terminal.
After feasting, he got on the 4.30pm flight back — taking a chicken wrap to have on the plane.
Marketer Mark said: “Nando’s has a place in my heart, and my belly.
Advertisement
“I know it’s not originally British but I think it’s part of British culture — I mean Ed Sheeran even wrote a song about Nando’s.
“Nothing even comes close to it in Spain.”
The South African chain has no branches in mainland Europe.
The entire trip, including flights, meal and some sauces to take home, cost £95.39.
Advertisement
Mark, originally from Haslemere, Surrey, said his family “thought I was a bit of an idiot and they’re not wrong”.
But he added: “I have no regrets.”
Nandos fans say as Aldi stocks a replica range – including their peri-peri fries for just £1.49
6
He flew from Barcelona to land at Gatwick Airport at 1.50pm on Wednesday — heading immediately to the chain’s restaurant in the South TerminalCredit: Jam Press Vid
6
Advertisement
After feasting, he got on the 4.30pm flight back — taking a chicken wrap to have on the planeCredit: Jam Press Vid
6
The entire trip, including flights, meal and some sauces to take home, cost £95.39Credit: Jam Press Vid
When your splendid article “Making scents of Myanmar” (HTSI, September 28) was published last Saturday I was coincidentally fundraising for the flooded area of Myanmar where people have lost their homes and crops. So it was good to read that Kathleen Baird-Murray, alongside her commercial activities making a memorable Burmese perfume, is supporting socially beneficial charities in such a poor country.
My money is going to an unimpeachable team helping to relieve the emergency in the flood-stricken areas.
Hopefully your article will stimulate more readers to donate to the poor people of Myanmar.
HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by a Black high school student in Texas for a court order that the student’s lawyers say would have allowed him to return to his high school without fear of having his previous punishment over his hairstyle resume.
Darryl George had sought to reenroll at his Houston-area high school in the Barbers Hill school district after leaving at the start of his senior year in August because district officials were set to continue punishing him for not cutting his hair. George had spent nearly all of his junior year serving in-school suspension over his hairstyle.
The district has argued that George’s long hair, which he wears to school in tied and twisted locs on top of his head, violates its policy because if let down, it would fall below his shirt collar, eyebrows or earlobes.
George, 19, had asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown in Galveston to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented district officials from further punishing him if he returned and while a federal lawsuit he filed proceeds.
Advertisement
But in a ruling issued late Friday afternoon, Brown denied George’s request, saying the student and his lawyers had waited too long to ask for the order.
George’s request had come after Brown in August dismissed most of the claims the student and his mother had filed in their federal lawsuit alleging school district officials committed racial and gender discrimination when they punished him.
The judge only let the gender discrimination claim stand.
In his ruling, Brown said he also denied George’s request for a temporary restraining order because the school district was more likely to prevail in the lawsuit’s remaining claim.
Advertisement
Brown’s ruling was coincidentally issued on George’s birthday. He turned 19 years old on Friday.
Allie Booker, an attorney for George, and a spokesperson for the Barbers Hill school district did not immediately return a call or email seeking comment.
George’s lawyer had said the student left Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu and transferred to another high school in a different Houston area district after suffering a nervous breakdown over the thought of facing another year of punishment.
In court documents filed this week, attorneys for the school district said George didn’t have legal standing to request the restraining order because he is no longer a student in the district.
Advertisement
The district has defended its dress code, which says its policies for students are meant to “teach grooming and hygiene, instill discipline, prevent disruption, avoid safety hazards and teach respect for authority.”
George’s federal lawsuit also alleged that his punishment violates the CROWN Act, a recent state law prohibiting race-based discrimination of hair. The CROWN Act, which was being discussed before the dispute over George’s hair and which took effect in September 2023, bars employers and schools from penalizing people because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including Afros, braids, locs, twists or Bantu knots.
In February, a state judge ruled in a lawsuit filed by the school district that its punishment does not violate the CROWN Act.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login