OFCOM-MANDO RAID: GB News BLOWS GASKET as Judge SLAMS Broadcast Watchdog!

In an explosive showdown between media mavericks and Britain’s broadcasting overlords, GB News has triumphed in a sensational High Court ruling that puts the regulatory watchdog OFCOM firmly in the doghouse and it’s already sending shock tremors across the UK’s newsrooms.

The fiery legal battle dubbed “Rees-Mogg v The Regime” by furious GB News fans erupted after OFCOM ruled that two editions of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation broke impartiality rules because the controversial ex-minister dared to read the news. Yes, you read that right: he read the news.

“This is censorship disguised as regulation!”

The Showdown: What Happened?

The courtroom clash centered around two GB News broadcasts from May and June 2023. In both, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (decked out in his signature pinstripe defiance) read brief updates on breaking news, once about Donald Trump’s civil case in the US, and once during live coverage of the tragic Nottingham attacks.

OFCOM went full red-alert. Their ruling claimed that because Rees-Mogg a sitting MP at the time read these snippets during a current affairs show, he had crossed the sacred line into the domain of “news presenting,” which, they argued, is a no-go zone for politicians. Their logic? Politicians can’t present the news, even for 53 seconds.

The Verdict That Shook the Tower.

But in a judgment that’s been called “a nuclear slapdown” by insiders, Mrs Justice Collins Rice wasn’t buying it.

“OFCOM’s analysis… does violence to the wording of the Code,” she wrote, eviscerating the watchdog's attempt to retroactively twist broadcasting rules to suit its case.

The judge ruled that Rees-Mogg’s show was clearly current affairs, not a news programmer, and thus didn’t fall under the strict ban on politicians reading the news. Boom. Game over.

In one dramatic stroke, the High Court not only shredded OFCOM’s interpretation of its own Code but warned the regulator it had overstepped its legal boundaries by effectively rewriting rules without proper consultation.

“This isn’t just a victory for GB News, It’s a message: Regulators don’t get to make it up as they go along.”

Quote Chaos and Backstage Fury.

Behind the scenes, tensions were boiling. A senior GB News insider speaking on condition of anonymity didn’t mince their words.

“We’re not just going to roll over while un-elected bureaucrats muzzle our voices. This was a stitch-up from day one. Rees-Mogg didn’t express opinion, he read facts from a teleprompter. If that’s bias now, journalism’s dead.”

Even political commentators from rival outlets were stunned.

“It’s a deeply troubling precedent that OFCOM even tried this,” said a former BBC journalist. “Are we now saying politicians can’t inform the public on breaking stories unless they’re wearing a rosette?”

The Freedom Fallout.

The ruling wasn’t just a win for GB News, it struck at the very heart of the UK’s media freedom landscape.

The judge cited the European Convention on Human Rights, reminding OFCOM that freedom of expression includes the right to impart information, even if it’s from a politician. And unless those restrictions are “prescribed by law,” they don’t hold water.

“They tried to build a wall around the news, and it just collapsed like a house of cards,”

Regulator in Retreat?

OFCOM, visibly rattled, tried to play it cool, but insiders say panic is spreading within its enforcement division. One anonymous OFCOM staffer was overheard describing the ruling as “a legal trainwreck” that could “change everything.”

The case now raises big questions about OFCOM’s ability to regulate fast-evolving formats, especially when newer channels blend news, commentary, and live discussion. Critics say OFCOM is clinging to a 20th-century rulebook in a 21st-century media war.

“They’ve lost the trust of broadcasters and possibly the public,” warned media analyst. “People see this as an ideological crackdown, not neutral regulation.”

Human Drama Behind the Headlines.

At the centre of the firestorm, Rees-Mogg himself remained characteristically unbothered.

“The British public are perfectly capable of distinguishing between news and narrative,” he quipped. “Unlike OFCOM, they don’t assume idiocy in their fellow citizens.”

But it’s not just about politicians. Presenters, producers, and even interns are now second-guessing their every move, fearful that reading a breaking alert could trigger another regulatory ambush.

“You’d think we were launching missiles, not reading headlines,” fumed one GB News producer. “This has chilled creativity across the board.”

The Numbers Behind the Noise

• OFCOM received dozens of complaints about the broadcasts but failed to show any evidence of actual bias in the content itself.
  
• In one clip, Rees-Mogg read a 53-second segment. That's it. Less time than it takes to read this paragraph.
  

What Now? A Battle Far From Over.

This ruling has redrawn the battle lines in British media. Broadcasters are emboldened, regulators are licking their wounds, and free speech campaigners are calling for a full overhaul of the Communications Act.

“The watchdog just got muzzled”

GB News, meanwhile, is relishing its victory but preparing for more scrutiny. Sources close to the network say they’re considering launching a documentary exposing the ‘overreach’ of British media regulation.

Final Word: A Warning Shot?

This isn’t just about one show, one presenter, or one moment. It’s about who gets to speak, who gets to report, and whether the gatekeepers of media are still fit for purpose.

In the words of one furious viewer on X:

“If OFCOM thinks it can silence dissent with bureaucracy, they’ve just had their day in court — and lost.”

The fight for Britain’s media future just turned bloody, bold, and very, very real.


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GB-News-v-Ofcom.pdf