Censor Watch

Ofcom has issued new censorship rules to broadcasters about politicians presenting news

The guidance, which comes into force immediately, reflects the modern news landscape and sets guardrails for broadcasters who use politicians as presenters in programmes that include news.

Specifically, our revised guidance explains the interaction between our due accuracy and due impartiality in news rule (5.1 under the Broadcasting Code), and the rule which prevents politicians from presenting news programmes (5.3). It also updates the definition of politician to provide greater clarity.

Access to duly accurate and duly impartial news on television and radio is fundamental to a democratic society. As such, broadcast news is afforded a higher level of protection under UK law compared to non-news content.

The news landscape has evolved in recent years. The distinction between news and current affairs content has become more blurred for audiences [3] , and while politicians presenting current affairs programmes isnt new, it has become a more established editorial practice.

Responses to our consultation were polarised, reflecting the broad range of views overall, and there was a high level of consensus amongst broadcasters in favour of retaining the wording of Rule 5.3. Many respondents were concerned that amending Rule 5.3 would introduce significant practical challenges and operational uncertainty for broadcasters, and that it would inadvertently result in a de facto ban on politicians presenting any kind of programmes.

Our decision in detail

The wording of Rule 5.3 will remain unchanged. Instead, we have decided that there is sufficient protection for audiences through the existing combination of Rules 5.1 and 5.3, but we have issued amended Guidance to make the relationship between them clearer, and more relevant to the modern news landscape. Specifically, we have decided to:

update our Guidance to Rule 5.1, which states that news, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

Our amendments make explicit that if an MP presented news in a non-news programme, then their status as an MP would likely be a relevant factor in considering whether that news was presented with due impartiality. We explain that we would also take into account all other relevant factors -- including, for example, the nature and subject of the news in question and the MPs political position on that issue. The new guidance also signposts that where politicians present news in news programmes, Rule 5.3 applies.

update our Guidance to Rule 5.3 , which states that no politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified . In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.

Our amended guidance offers further clarification on the meaning of exceptional circumstances -- defined as those which cannot be controlled or foreseen by the broadcaster. We also make clear that we would expect such situations to be rare, and for licensees who use politicians as presenters to put appropriate contingency arrangements in place to avoid these situations.

update the definition of politician in our Guidance

The new definition now includes a reference to members of the House of Lords and representatives of political parties, while the reference to activists has been removed.

These changes to the Guidance come into force from today. Politicians as presenters in non-news programmes, including current affairs programmes

There is no Ofcom rule that prevents a politician from presenting or appearing on a TV or radio programme -- providing they arent standing in an election taking place, or about to take place, and that the programme otherwise complies with the Broadcasting Code

Graham Linehan Cleared After Heathrow Arrest as CPS Drops Case After Free Speech Controversy

The charges may be dropped but the arrest leaves behind a chilling portrait of a country increasingly turning against free speech.

Graham Linehan, the Irish writer best known for Father Ted and The IT Crowd , says police have now confirmed he will face no further action following his controversial arrest at Heathrow Airport last month. He was accused of using social media to incite violence, a claim now dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Linehans arrest became a flashpoint in a growing concern over the decline of free speech in modern Britain. The image of an airport surrounded by armed officers confronting a comedy writer for tweets struck many as absurd, even dystopian.

He credited the Free Speech Union for its support and vowed to hold the police accountable for what is only the latest attempt to silence and suppress gender critical voices on behalf of dangerous and disturbed men

Ofcom has explained:

Ofcom has determined that 4chan has breached its duty under section 102(8)(a) of the Act to comply with a statutory request for information, on two separate occasions.

We are imposing a fixed penalty of £20,000 on 4chan in respect of both breaches. This penalty was set having regard to our Penalty Guidelines.

In addition, 4chan is now required to take immediate steps to comply with section 102(8)(a) by providing the following:

a copy of the written record of its illegal content risk assessment(s) in respect of 4chan.org as required by the first statutory information request; and information specified in the second statutory information request relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue ('QWR').

Should 4chan fail to comply, a daily rate penalty of £100 per day will be imposed starting from the day after the date of the Confirmation Decision for either 60 days or until 4chan provides Ofcom with the information outlined above (whichever is sooner).

See article from x.com

Preston Byrne is defending 4Chan in US law nad has a few interesting reveals into how Ofcom intend to pursue its censorship citing sovereign imunity.

 

Porn websites too

Ofcom has announced that it will take the next steps in the pursuit of porn website provider AVS Limited.

This in relation to the adult sites www.pornzog.com, www.txxx.com, www.txxx.tube, www.upornia.com, www.hdzog.com, www.hdzog.tube, www.thegay.com, www.thegay.tube, www.ooxxx.com, www.hotmovs.com, www.hclips.com, www.vjav.com, www.pornl.com, www.voyeurhit.com, www.manysex.com, www.tubepornclassic.com, www.shemalez.com and www.shemalez.tube .

Ofcom explains

Following an investigation, Ofcom has provisionally determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe AVS Group Ltd has failed, and is failing, to comply with section 12 of the Online Safety Act ('the Act'). Section 12 imposes a duty on providers of services that fall under Part 3 of the Act, and allow pornographic content, to ensure that children are prevented from encountering pornographic content through the use of highly effective age assurance.

Ofcom therefore issued a provisional notice of contravention to AVS Group Ltd on 10 October 2025 under section 130 of the Act. The notice also sets out our provisional view that AVS Group Ltd has infringed its duties under section 102(8) of the Act by failing to respond to a statutory request for information issued as part of the investigation.

Similarly Ofcom is haranging websites from Youngtek Solutions Ltd The websites under consideration are www.imagefap.com, www.empflix.com www.moviefap.com, www.pornrepublic.com and www.TNAflix.com.