Ofcom’s Cunning Plan to Extend Its Censorship Role

Dr Gary Sidley, retired NHS consultant psychologist

Back in 2020, Ofcom, the UK broadcasts regulator, performed a pivotal role in censoring dissenting voices opposed to the dominant covid narrative. Ominously – based on their June 2025 document titled, ‘Consultation: Online Safety – Additional Safety Measures’ – it is clear that the executives in charge of Ofcom are not satisfied with their current powers to curate what we have access to in the media, and are now striving for more control over the population’s listening and viewing habits.

Many will recall how, in 2020, Ofcom was one half of a pincer movement dedicated to promoting ‘right-think’ in UK citizens as part of the most intensive propaganda campaign in peacetime history. While the Government paid broadcasters £184 million to disseminate their ‘pandemic’ messages, Ofcom strived to ensure that broadcasters did not deviate from the official narrative by censoring those who were brave and insightful enough to oppose the covid restrictions and vaccine coercion. Many fell victim to Ofcom’s gagging orders – including sitting MPs and world renowned epidemiologists – and many more were silenced by the threat of punitive sanctions and cancellation. Alas, such awesome power to delete dissenting voices has not satiated Ofcom’s censorious appetite and they are now seeking to further limit the information available to ordinary people.

Ofcom’s recent ‘Online Safety – Additional Safety Measures’document has been published in the guise of a ‘consultation’. Since it appeared in June, it does not seem to have attracted much attention; indeed, the final cut-off date for responses (20.10.25) has now passed with very little publicity. Nonetheless, HART believes that it is important that people familiarise themselves with its contents, and form a conclusion regarding its intended purpose. (The document extends to 309 pages, but useful commentaries have been provided by the Together movement – see here, here, and here).

What Ofcom claims to be doing

Created by Tony Blair’s 2003 government, Ofcom was the product of merging five existing regulatory bodies who were overseeing TV, radio, and telecommunications. Traditionally perceived as performing the valuable role of maintaining high standards of broadcasting, it has more recently extended it remit – via the 2023 ‘Online Safety Act’ – to become the UK’s internet regulator, protecting our children by restricting their access to unsuitable material, while shielding adults from ‘harmful or illegal’ content.

Ofcom’s recent paper – ‘Online Safety: Additional Safety Measures’ – portrays their intentions as being simply to further extend its honourable mission to ensure that our minds are not poisoned by viewing dangerous content on our mobile phones and laptops. The document highlights that the online world is ‘constantly evolving’ and, as a result, Ofcom’s regulatory approach must be ‘dynamic’ so that it can neutralise ‘new manifestations of harm’. To effectively perform this function, it seeks to realise ‘expanded use of proactive technologies’ so that people do not get to access to ‘potentially illegal material until it has been checked by services’. In particular, our national regulator is committed to additional restrictions on ‘live streaming’ if it is ‘encouraging hate … harassment threats … abuse’.

So, in short, this auspicious watchdog is planning to go that extra mile to prevent the poisoning of our children’s minds, and to protect adult sensibilities; what’s not to like?

What Ofcom is really doing

As many of us have learnt from the covid debacle, any claims by powerful state-funded bodies to be keeping us all ‘safe’ should immediately trigger huge concerns among ordinary people. We must never forget that, on the 23^rd of March, 2020 – lockdown day – Ofcom announced that it would adopt additional measures to ensure that the general population was given ‘adequate protection from harmful or offensive material’, and that broadcasters must apply ‘generally accepted standards’. In effect this meant alternative voices challenging the government’s covid narrative – the bulk of it valid criticism, as it turned out – were heavily censored or cancelled. Ofcom’s recent paper clearly constitutes a further power grab to enable it to, more quickly, and effectively, quash any future dissent to the state’s self-serving commentaries.

The wording within the document conveys Ofcom’s true intentions. The wish to be ‘dynamic’ reflects a desire to be more vigorous and agile in its suppression of information that is inconsistent with the government’s agenda. Its increasing focus on ‘new manifestations of harm’ conveys their aim to have the necessary flexibility to censor any future narratives as they arise; so any counter arguments to the official perspectives around circulating pathogens, imminent climate catastrophes, forever wars – or whatever else our global leaders wish to scare (and control) us with – can be stamped on before they see light of day using ‘proactive technologies’. Their claim to be countering nebulous concepts such as ‘hate’, ‘harassment’, and ‘abuse’, gives Ofcom carte blanche to target a wide range of information that does not chime with the current government’s favoured ideology. And the specific mention of targeting ‘live streaming’ is particularly concerning given that, over recent years, it has been one of the few sources for accessing dissenting voices.

Arguably the most Orwellian element in Ofcom’s plan is its call to deny ordinary people access to certain types of information until it has been ‘checked by services’; this smacks of a Big Brother vetting process, built on the core assumption that the state is the only source of truth.

The most crucial element to any large scale propaganda campaign is to ensure that dissenting voices, claims, and arguments never reach the light of day. It is apparent from this 2025 document – published to coincide with what Ofcom describes as its ‘year of action’ – that our national broadcasting regulator is eager to perform this pivotal role of omnipotent censor, ensuring that we only ever hear one, government-curated, version of the truth.