We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

Ofcom Guidelines Preventing Free Press and Scrutiny

On the 27th of March 2020 the UK regulator Ofcom published this document on their website (mirror). It is all about the “Important guidance” regarding “broadcast content on the Coronavirus”. Ofcom had apparently sent this other document out (mirror) to all broadcasters on the 20th March 2020 and made it available on the 23rd March 2020, the day the first UK lockdown was announced by the Government.

The original document sent on the 20th was a “Note to Broadcasters” and begins with the claim…

Ofcom is understandably receiving a number of queries from broadcast licensees about the Coronavirus situation and how we will view any impact the current situation has on compliance with regulatory obligations.


That may or may not be true, we will likely never know but clearly as Ofcom is part of the Government, even though most of these regulatory bodies tout themselves as “independent”, we know that only the Government can make rules for other people and enforce them, or punish people for not following them. The average citizen cannot place demands on other citizens or private companies with the threat of fines or other punitive measures for non-compliance. Only the Government can do that (which is wrong of course but a separate topic) and so regardless of any labelling as “independent” or whatever, they are clearly an arm of the State, enforcing the State’s rules.

So what is the big deal about this Ofcom communication to all broadcasters? Much of that “note” was related to requirements and license obligations around “programming commitments” and the possibility of those being impacted by “Coronavirus”. Things like the presumed requirement to have a “compliance officer” available at all times, but if they are off sick or something what could happen. Or the financial impact of “Coronavirus” seeing as Ofcom would be aware that lockdown was pending and how much that can and did impact smaller businesses, including smaller licensed broadcasters. Those seem pretty reasonable in the circumstances if we set aside that the Government created those problems deliberately for no justifiable or evidenced cause.

It begins to get more interesting when you get to this section…

We recognise that licensees will 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.

We will be prioritising our enforcement of broadcast standards in relation to the above issues.


This in itself again seems reasonable, but of course we know that broadcasters simply fearmongered and parroted Establishment propaganda, almost all of which was false. Claims about infection fatality rates (IFR), claims that lockdowns and masks help “prevent the spread”, claims that the NHS was on the verge of collapse, claims that the ONLY thing that would save us was a “vaccine”, claims that the “vaccine” was 100% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death, claims that the “vaccine” is completely safe and has been fully tested. None of those things are true, they are provably false and were provably false at the time they were said, repeatedly. Has Ofcom taken the BBC, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4 or any of the other major broadcasters to task over their completely false “health claims” and “medical advice” or the lack of “accuracy” and proliferation of “material misleadingness”? Nope, of course not.

The reason why is made clear in the other document, the first one linked at the start of this article that contains the following…

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.

In particular, we strongly advise you to take particular care when broadcasting, for example:

• unverified information about the Coronavirus. This may include, for instance, discussion of unverified theories for the causes of the Coronavirus and discussion of potential treatments or cures for the Coronavirus that do not align with advice of the NHS or other public health authorities; and

• statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease.


Ofcom “strongly advise” broadcasters to “take particular care” over “unverified information” that doesn’t “align with advice of the NHS or other public health authorities”. What’s the risk for any lack of “care”? Well as we saw, enforcement of “broadcast standards”, which is ultimately could be the revoking of broadcast licenses and the end of the broadcaster, and Ofcom has said this is now their priority. Let’s look back at that first list again…

• 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.

Health claims or medical advice which “may be harmful”. Harmful to who? Harmful to the public, or harmful to powerful vested interests, Government plans and pharmaceutical profits? You decide.

They also warn against “statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies”, so the Government then, and also not to “undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources”, so basically the Government and corporate media who have had Governments become their biggest sources of advertising revenue.

This was precisely the advice that was the result of wargaming a global respiratory pandemic in October 2019 at Event 201. In the long list of “recommendations” proposed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation consider point 7…

Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.


On the surface that sounds reasonable. If there was a pandemic no-one wants mis- and disinformation flying about, although obviously censorship is NOT the solution, ever. But what we had was a 24/7 campaign of fear and dis/misinformation from the “public health authorities”, Governments and the so-called “trusted, influential private-sector”. The computer models were evidentially wrong, were called out at the time for being wrong and that was just censored. Any information or question that were counter to the narrative the like of Bill Gates, big pharma, national Governments and global “governance” organisations demanded was all but wiped off the face of the planet and the real disinformation, i.e. information deliberately disseminated in order to mislead was promulgated by the very groups we are told to trust without question.

Ofcom were simply a part of that mission, to ensure that with the threat of regulatory action and loss of licenses and/or businesses all broadcasters must “comply” with ensuring their content “aligns with” what the Government says. When the Government pivots for no good reason on something, like masks for example, the broadcasters pivot too and don’t ask any questions or make any statements that could “undermine” the Government.

It’s been said many times, the truth fears no interrogation. There should be no questions off limits if this is science and evidence based. Most of the people the Governments are trying to silence would happily engage in a live, nationally televised debate and look at all the evidence, speak to all the experts, not just State approved ones, and let the evidence ultimately speak for itself.

If the Governments had any evidence to support their policies and direction of travel, this should be easy. Set up a panel, televise it on the State’s own broadcast service (the BBC) and invite all the people who disagree with the Government’s policies to an open debate. Those people have been asking for that since day one, but it hasn’t happened and won’t happen. Why? Because the truth would be revealed for all to see, and the Government knows that.