Tag: censorship

Goodbye Jury Trials, Hello Digital ID: 10 “recommendations” from the Crime and Justice Commission

The Times Crime and Justice Commission was established last year, with its mission statement being to…

consider the future of policing and the criminal justice system, in the light of the knife crime crisis, a shoplifting epidemic, the growing threat of cybercrime, concerns about the culture of the police, court backlogs, problems with legal aid and overflowing prisons.

And today is that long-promised glorious golden day where they reveal their findings. The white smoke has gone up and we get to witness the result of their long hours of toil.

How are we going to fix everything?

Let’s take a look at the complete list, with some helpful annotations:

1. Introduce a universal digital ID system to drive down fraud, tackle illegal immigration and reduce identity theft;

Digital ID for everybody! It’s going to solve every problem! We’ve talked this to death, it was always going to be in here.

2. Target persistent offenders and crime hotspots using data to clamp down on shoplifting, robbery and antisocial behaviour;

That’s about surveillance. “Data” means your private data which they will get from social media companies.

3. Roll out live facial recognition and other artificial intelligence tools to drive the efficiency and effectiveness of the police;

Again, FRT was always going to feature. I’m not sure what “other artificial intelligence tools” means, but the vagueness is likely the point. “Efficiency” is the word doing the heavy-lifting in that sentence, intended to capture the pro-MAGA, pro-Musk UK crowd.

4. Create a licence to practise for the police, with revalidation every five years to improve culture and enhance professionalism;

That’s just throwing something out for the “other side”. So far it’s all just more powers for the police and courts, this adds some faux accountability framework into the mix to make it look fair.

5. Set up victim care hubs backed by a unified digital case file to create a seamless source of information and advice;

Same as above, with some extra seasoning for the digital identity sales pitch thrown in.

6. Introduce a new intermediate court with a judge and two magistrates to speed up justice and reduce court delays;

This is about replacing trial by jury, and that’s all it’s about. It’s something they’ve been wanting to do for years and keep making excuses to try.

7. Move to a “common sense” approach to sentencing with greater transparency about jail time, incentives for rehabilitation and expanded use of house arrest;

Not sure what this means in real terms, but any use “common sense” in this kind of document should always raise an eyebrow. As should the idea of “expanded use of house arrest”.

8. Give more autonomy and accountability to prison governors with a greater focus on rehabilitation and create a College of Prison and Probation Officers;

No idea what this means yet. Could be about more prison-based work programs (a la private prisons in the US), could just be fluff between important parts.

9. Restrict social media for under-16s to protect children from criminals and extreme violent or sexual content;

Again, very predictable. And, again, very dishonest. As we’ve said a thousand times, “restricting social media to under-16s” – in practical terms – means everyone on social media has to verify their age. So bye-bye online anonymity.

Keep reading

Democrats Would Like To Suppress Free Speech The Way Britain Does

It’s easy to look at a collapsing civil society in a foreign country and comfort ourselves that, despite all our problems, we’re not as bad off as those people. Americans are especially apt to do this with our cousins in Great Britain, whose country is now in a state of precipitous and probably irreversible decline, and whose political leadership is openly hostile to the native population.

But it’s a mistake to comfort ourselves this way, partly because the corruption of a place like Britain — the online censorship, the criminalization of disfavored opinions, the two-tiered system of justice — doesn’t stay confined to their shores but eventually makes its way to ours. Indeed, many Democrats here in America don’t see the tyranny of modern Britain as a cautionary tale but as a template to follow.

A startling case in point is a recent story from Drop Site News by Paul Holden, who chronicles how a secret campaign to elevate Kier Starmer to prime minister included a scheme to demonetize news outlets deemed unfriendly to the Starmer wing of the Labour Party. One of those news outlets was The Federalist.

In the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign, a shadowy UK-based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) worked with NBC News and Google insiders to attempt to blacklist and demonetize The Federalist under false pretexts — an effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. The Orwellian-named NBC News Verification Unit reported in June 2020 that Google had banned the website ZeroHedge from its advertising platform and had warned The Federalist that it too might be banned.

But this wasn’t just “reporting,” it was part of a larger political op. According to the NBC News report itself, Google’s actions came only after the company had been “notified of research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation. They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.”

And who notified Google about this CCDH report? NBC News did. This was a transparent effort by left-wing activists at NBC News, together with left-wing activists at the CCDH, to demonetize and silence The Federalist for the crime of noticing the hypocrisy surrounding BLM protests and strict Covid lockdowns.

But who or what was the CCDH, and why did it target The Federalist? At the time, the CCDH’s connection to the Starmer political machine and the Labour Party was unclear. But as Holden’s reporting reveals, the CCDH was part of a larger partisan political project that targeted The Federalist, Breitbart, ZeroHedge, and others. “As Keir Starmer rose to power in Britain, the political machine responsible for his rise ran a behind-the-scenes campaign to demonetize the U.S. news outlet Breitbart,” writes Holden. “The attacks on Breitbart were part of a targeted campaign against media outlets on both the left and right considered hostile to the centrist faction of the Labour Party, according to a trove of documents that expose the operation.”

At the center of this campaign was a man named Morgan McSweeney, who is now Prime Minster Starmer’s chief of staff. Between 2018 and 2020, McSweeney served as the company secretary and managing director for an organization called Labour Together that funded a think tank called Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN). At the time, SFFN claimed to be a grassroots effort organized and run by a group of anonymous concerned citizens inspired by the demonetizing campaigns run by Sleeping Giants, which had targeted Breitbart in the U.S. during the 2016 election.

In fact, SFFN was an astroturfing operation created and run by people in positions of real power inside the Labour Party, including not just McSweeney but Steve Reed, now a senior member of Starmer’s cabinet. The original purpose of SFFN, as Holden reports, was “to defeat the left-wing of the Labour Party and the media ecosystem that supported it.” The operations of SFFN, however, expanded to include right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Federalist, which it saw as impediments to Starmer’s rise.

Eventually, SFFN was absorbed into a new entity, CCDH, whose CEO is a man named Imran Ahmed. Ahmed worked with McSweeney in the London office of Labour Together, which first launched the SFFN project. Ahmed has said that McSweeney gave him a “shell company” called Brixton Endeavors that later became CCDH and in early 2020 absorbed the entire SFFN project. McSweeney has tried to distance himself from all this but as Holden notes, McSweeney was the sole director of Brixton Endeavors between 2018 and September 2019, and remained a director of CCDH until April 2020.

During this time, a plan was developed to target disfavored news outlets by going after their advertisers. As Ahmed himself said in an October 2020 U.S. State Department conference on antisemitism, the CCDH “put together a program called stop funding fake news” designed to undermine ad revenue of certain news sites. He boasted that the weak points of news websites is that they’re expensive to run, so eliminating their ad revenue meant that “within a couple of months, you can completely eviscerate the economic base of a website.”

What Ahmed and his underlings at CCDH needed was a willing news outlet to “report” on its targeting of certain websites for being “hateful” or “racist.” This they found in the NBC News Verification Unit, which tried to goad Google into demonetizing The Federalist and others, and then “reported” it as news.

Take a step back and realize that this is the equivalent of people like Ron Klain or Jeff Zients, who served as chiefs of staff during the Biden administration, running secretive demonetization ops against conservative news outlets in America.

But even that isn’t very far-fetched. After all, the Biden administration’s State Department used its now-defunct Global Engagement Center to fund censorship operations by groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index, which targeted The Federalist and The Daily Wire, among others. We here at The Federalist joined with The Daily Wire in a lawsuit against the State Department in 2023, claiming these groups, supported by the federal government, sought to defund and suppress our reporting and commentary in violation of our First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Macron Wants To Go Full “Ministry Of Truth” With Draconian Censorship Grab

French President Emmanuel Macron is facing fierce pushback from conservative voices within France over his renewed drive to grant the state sweeping new censorship powers, Barron’s reports.

On Friday, Macron once again raised the alarm about so-called “disinformation” spreading on social media, insisting that parliament grant authorities the ability to immediately block content deemed “false information.” As if the existing arsenal of censorship tools weren’t enough, the left-wing president now wants to establish a “professional certification” system that would effectively create an official, state-approved class of media outlets—separating those that toe the government’s ethical line from those that refuse to do so.

France’s right-wing press has reacted with outrage, with Vincent Bolloré’s Journal du Dimanche denouncing Macron’s “totalitarian drift” on free speech and warning of “the temptation of a ministry of truth.”

Bolloré-owned CNews and Europe 1 were equally scathing, with popular presenter Pascal Praud accusing the president of acting out of personal resentment, declaring the initiative comes from a “president unhappy with his treatment by the media and who wants to impose a single narrative.”

National Rally leader Jordan Bardella also delivered a blistering rebuke, saying in a statement, “Tampering with freedom of expression is an authoritarian temptation, which corresponds to the solitude of a man… who has lost power and seeks to maintain it by controlling information.”

Bruno Retailleau, head of the Republicans in the Senate, echoed the warning on X: “[N]o government has the right to filter the media or dictate the truth.”

Keep reading

Britain Is Lost

A recent interview Tucker Carlson had with George Galloway, a long-time member of the British Parliament and with a show himself in Britain, who was recently detained at the border under terrorism charges for, apparently, the opinions broadcast on his show.

No nation has fallen quicker or more completely than Britain into the totalitarian mindset.

It’s why we highlighted this aspect of modern Europe into the film Deconstruction.

Britain, as long as it pursues the same oppression of free speech as the Soviet Union, can not be called or considered an ally of the United States.

This is what we have to decide as a people, the American people, who will and who will not be our allies. Governments, especially now, are poor judges of character. They will hold onto traditional alliances, when those alliances have long been strained, simply because they would be unsure of what that would do to international relationships. If we lose Britain, France and Germany as allies, what effect does that have on NATO?

My question, however, is what damage does continued alliances with nations who punish their people for what they have said, posted or broadcast do to international perception? Are we not tarnished by their brush? Yes. It also signals that the United States is not determined to uphold the right to free speech. That in order to maintain these alliances will betray their own people.

As Britain, France and Germany turn toward implementing a police state to support immigrants who rape and kill their sons and daughters, put protesters in jail and silence not only their own citizens, but any who arrive through the internet, can they still be considered allies of a free nation? No. So, how free is that “free” nation? It is not free as it supports and continues alliances with nations diametrically opposed, not only to free speech, but a series of democratic principles.

The battle taking place within the European nations draw a stark contrast to the Central and Eastern European nations, formerly Soviet client states, who distance themselves from European Union dictates that promote illegal migration and the silencing of objectors.

The whole idea of democracy comes from the idea that the people have a say in who governs them and the policies they impose. When freedom of speech is so blatantly outlawed and only approved narratives permitted, there is no democracy. I don’t know what sort of government Britain has, but it is not a democracy as it claims. Yes, I know it’s technically a Monarchy, but the King or Queen has nowhere near the political power they once held.

All of this centers around illegal migration, it’s where people like Keir Starmer intend to derive their power, in the end. If he supports the replacement population when it is unpopular to do so, they might look kindly on him when the Islamists take full control of the politics, but he is a useful idiot.

They continue to put forth the idea that a declining birthrate is the reason for the importation of these migrants, but if European and American birthrates are dropping, as it is in all Western societies, it would seem that the logical conclusion would be to outlaw abortion, not import rapists and murderers.

But that’s not the reason. It isn’t the birthrate, it’s an attempt to forever change politics that eliminates the right, the Christians. This point was made clear by Viktor Orban in the film Deconstruction that’s coming out soon.

Communists and Islamists work well together. They have the same goal, supremacy through murder and imprisonment of an uncompliant populace. Democracies must tolerate the naysayers, the critics, that’s the difference. It won’t be long and the UK will be an Islamic nation, just as Iran became an Islamic nation. Are they still allies of the US? If so, why are not all Islamic nations allies? Because Islamic nations are at war with the US. “Death to America” does not seem like the pronouncement of an ally. Will it be heard across Britain, while we still consider it a close ally? Of course.

The United States had better figure this out, too. The only true allies the US has in Europe are the Central and Eastern European nations.

They are also the ones that need more protection from Russia and China, because, as smaller economies, they can’t afford to be too choosy about who they do business with and the more that the United States can be a better economic partner, the stronger we will all be.

The world is changing rapidly and our government is incapable of keeping up with the pace. It has to be led by the people.

The film Deconstruction makes this point. 

Keep reading

Congress Goes Parental on Social Media and Your Privacy

Washington has finally found a monster big enough for bipartisan unity: the attention economy. In a moment of rare cross-aisle cooperation, lawmakers have introduced two censorship-heavy bills and a tax scheme under the banner of the UnAnxious Generation package.

The name, borrowed from Jonathan Haidt’s pop-psychology hit The Anxious Generation, reveals the obvious pitch: Congress will save America’s children from Silicon Valley through online regulation and speech controls.

Representative Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, who has built a career out of publicly scolding tech companies, says he’s going “directly at their jugular.”

The plan: tie legal immunity to content “moderation,” tax the ad money, and make sure kids can’t get near an app without producing an “Age Signal.” If that sounds like a euphemism for surveillance, that’s because it is.

The first bill, the Deepfake Liability Act, revises Section 230, the sacred shield that lets platforms host your political rants, memes, and conspiracy reels without getting sued for them.

Under the new proposal, that immunity becomes conditional on a vague “duty of care” to prevent deepfake porn, cyberstalking, and “digital forgeries.”

TIME’s report doesn’t define that last term, which could be a problem since it sounds like anything from fake celebrity videos to an unflattering AI meme of your senator. If “digital forgery” turns out to include parody or satire, every political cartoonist might suddenly need a lawyer on speed dial.

Auchincloss insists the goal is accountability, not censorship. “If a company knows it’ll be liable for deepfake porn, cyberstalking, or AI-created content, that becomes a board-level problem,” he says. In other words, a law designed to make executives sweat.

But with AI-generated content specifically excluded from Section 230 protections, the bill effectively redefines the internet’s liability protections.

Keep reading

A story of censorship – starting in the 1970s

It’s difficult to know precisely when the censorship and the oppression really began, and it’s always been difficult to know who was behind it. But there has been no doubt in my mind that it has for a long time been very real.

In the 1970s and 1980s, I wrote and campaigned a good deal about animal experiments (of which I always heartily disapproved on scientific grounds as well as on humanitarian grounds) and the police in general, and special branch in particular, started taking a close interest in my work from that time on.

Whenever I went to speak at an anti-vivisection rally, I would have my own video cameraman. He would follow me around and film me and everyone I spoke to.

Robin Webb was the Animal Liberation Front’s official press officer and he had his own police cameraman too. When we met and talked, our two devoted cameramen would stand beside us filming us both. I photographed a bunch of policemen who were following me once and wrote an article about them in the Sunday People. One of the photographs was captioned `The Hand of Plod’.

On one occasion, I was prevented from travelling to a demonstration by a police sergeant who threatened to arrest me simply for driving on the road. I sued the Chief Constable. The judge didn’t like me suing a policeman.

The son of a dear friend of mine worked for Special Branch and told me (via his father) that although they followed all my activities closely, they did not regard me as dangerous in a physical sense. “Following my activities closely” meant that they tapped my telephone, sucked messages off my fax machine and every time I moved house, someone arranged for one or two plainly marked telecom vans to sit parked outside my gate for days at a time. Whenever I asked what they were doing, the men inside the van replied that they were just making sure that my telephone line worked well. And this without my ever making a complaint about a dodgy line.

Another MI5 operative confirmed what I had been told.

The oppression was very heavy in those days because animal rights campaigners were pretty much the only reason for the existence of MI5, GCHQ and Special Branch. My phone and fax machine were constantly tapped.

After that, other campaigns attracted the attention of the various branches of MI5, Special Branch and GCHQ.

My successful campaign to force the government to issue controls on benzodiazepine tranquillisers resulted in my phone not working and my mail disappearing.

And then there was AIDS.

AIDS was the first attempt to control the world with a pandemic. And it was the similarity between the way AIDS was promoted and the way the coronavirus hoax was being promoted which helped me understand the truth about covid right at the beginning – in February and March 2020.

In the 1980s, I wrote a good deal about AIDS. I did a great deal of research and wrote a number of articles for The Sun (for which I was the medical correspondent for ten years), and in a number of them, I explained precisely why the Government and the medical establishment were creating entirely false fears. It was clear from all the medical literature that AIDS was not going to kill us all. (The official line, supported and promoted with great enthusiasm by the British Medical Association and the rest of the medical establishment, was that by the year 2000, everyone in the world would be in some way affected by AIDS.)

For the first months of the scare, I appeared a good deal on television and radio to debate the whole AIDS scare.

Keep reading

Files expose Britain’s secret D-Notice censorship regime

Documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal how British soldiers and spies censor news reporting on ‘national security,’ coercing reporters into silence. The files show the Committee boasting of a “90% + success rate” in enforcing the official British line on any controversial story – or disappearing reports entirely.

A new trove of documents obtained by The Grayzone through freedom of information (FOI) requests provide unprecedented insight into Britain’s little-known military and intelligence censorship board. The contents lay bare how the secretive Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee censors the output of British journalists, while categorizing independent media as “extremist” for publishing “embarrassing” stories. The body imposes what are known as D-Notices, gag-orders systematically suppressing information available to the public.

The files provide the clearest view to date of the inner workings of the opaque committee, exposing which news items the British national security state has sought to shape or keep from public view. These include the bizarre 2010 death of a GCHQ codebreaker, MI6 and British special forces activity in the Middle East and Africa, the sexual abuse of children by government officials, and the death of Princess Diana. 

The files show the shadowy Committee maintains an iron grip over the output of legacy British media outlets, transforming British journalists to royal court stenographers. With the Committee having firmly imposed themselves on the editorial process, a wide range of reporters have submitted “apologies” to the board for their media offenses, flaunting their subservience in order to maintain their standing within British mainstream media.

In addition, the documents also show the Committee’s intentions to extend the D-Notice system to social media, stating its desire to engage with “tech giants” in a push to suppress revealing disclosures on platforms like Meta and Twitter/X.

How The Grayzone obtained the files

The DSMA Committee describes itself as “an independent advisory body composed of senior civil servants and editors” which brings together representatives of the security services, army, government officials, press association chiefs, senior editors, and reporters. The system forges a potent clientelist rapport between journalists and powerful state agencies, heavily influencing what national security matters get reported on in the mainstream, and how. The Committee also routinely issues so-called “D-Notices,” demanding media outlets seek its “advice” before reporting certain stories, or simply asking they avoid particular topics outright.

The DSMA Committee is funded by and housed in Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MOD), chaired by the MOD’s Director General of Security Policy Paul Wyatt, and 36-year British Army  veteran Brigadier Geoffery Dodds serves as its Secretary, raising serious questions about the extent to which British ‘news’ on national security could effectively be written by the Ministry of Defence.

Even though the MOD explicitly retains the right to dismiss its Secretary, the DSMA Committee insists it operates independently from the British government. This means the Committee isn’t subject to British FOI laws.

So how did The Grayzone obtain these files?

The unprecedented disclosure was the result of an effort by the Committee to assist Australia’s government in creating a D-Notice system of their own. In doing so, it established a papertrail which Canberra was forced to release under its own FOI laws. Australian authorities fought tooth and nail to prevent the documents’ release for over five months, until the country’s Information Commissioner forced the Department of Home Affairs to release them.

Keep reading

Substack Introduces ID Checks to Comply with UK Censorship Law

By now, you’ve probably realized the internet is being slowly fitted into a digital checkpoint.

Everything is being scrubbed down, sanitized, and locked behind a digital turnstile with a flashing sign that says: Show us your ID.

Substack, that cozy digital home where newsletter authors rant, muse, and argue about everything from politics to fan fiction of 19th-century philosophers, is the latest to be roped into the bureaucratic puppet show known as the UK’s Online Safety Act.

And the British government has decided that if you’re reading a mildly spicy newsletter, you must first present identification. No, really.

To access some of the platform’s content, you may soon have to upload a selfie and a government-issued ID.

What this means for readers in the UK is simple: prepare to be interrupted. You’re sitting down to read your favorite newsletter. Maybe it’s political commentary, maybe it’s a writer who occasionally uses words like “orgasmic” while referring to cake.

Either way, you click. And boom. Content blurred, comment section blocked, and your feed now behind a velvet rope manned by an algorithm with a clipboard.

Keep reading

We Must Resist The Rise Of A Global Censorship Regime

The ordeal of Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who just stood trial a third time – after being acquitted twice – for a 2019 tweet in which she simply shared a Scripture verse and her faith-based views on marriage and sexuality, is a warning to all who value the right to speak freely across the world.

When governments claim the power to police opinions, even peaceful expressions of faith can be dragged through the courts.

And now this promises to be a much more pervasive reality in Europe as a result of the 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA). Ahead of the European Union’s review of the DSA, 113 international experts committed to free speech wrote to the European Commission highlighting the law’s incompatibility with free expression, citing the possibility of worldwide takedown orders. Räsänen was a signatory to the letter, alongside a former vice president of Yahoo Europe, a former U.S. senator, and politicians, academics, lawyers, and journalists from around the globe.

The DSA gives the E.U. authority to enforce moderation of “illegal content” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It enables bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy.”

However, E.U. member states may have different definitions of illegal content. Thus, under the law, anything deemed illegal under the speech laws of any one E.U. member state could potentially be removed across all of Europe. That means the harshest censorship laws in Europe could soon govern the entire continent, and possibly the internet worldwide. And if platforms fail to comply, they face billions in fines, thus providing clear incentive to censor and none to promote free speech.

Late last month, the E.U. announced that Meta and TikTok will face fines of up to 6 percent of their global sales for accusations of violating the DSA on matters related to transparency. But the well-founded fear is that this law—which grants sweeping authority to European regulators to control online speech across such platforms—including X, YouTube, and Facebook—will enable the kind of censorship endured by Räsänen on a global scale.

Further, citizens in countries outside of the E.U., like the United States, are at risk of facing new levels of censorship, because the DSA applies to large online digital platforms and search engines accessed within the E.U. but that have a global presence. It explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment.”

Platforms are incentivized to adapt their international content moderation policies to E.U. censorship. If those platforms deem something “illegal” under E.U. rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.

Keep reading

UK Ofcom Pushes Rules Targeting “Misogynistic” Content, Prompting (Even More) Free Speech Concerns

Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material.

Additional proposals include “trusted flagger” partnerships with NGOs, identity verification options, and algorithmic “friction” mechanisms, small design barriers meant to deter impulsive posting.

Some of the ideas, such as warning prompts and educational links, are voluntary.

Yet several major advocacy groups, including Refuge and Internet Matters, are pressing for the government to make them binding on all platforms.

If adopted wholesale, these measures would effectively place Ofcom in a position to oversee the policing of legal speech, with tech firms acting as its enforcement arm.

In a letter announcing the guidance, Ofcom’s Chief Executive Melanie Dawes declared that “the digital world is not serving women and girls the way it should,” describing online misogyny and non-consensual deepfakes as pervasive problems that justify immediate “industry-wide action.”

She stated that Ofcom would “follow up to understand how you are applying this Guidance” and publish a progress report in 2027.

Keep reading