A GB News presenter is issuing legal threats against me for spreading "fake news"
Amidst job cuts and severe financial losses, a figurehead of the "bastion of free speech" suddenly doesn't like free speech
You know your efforts are paying off when the legal threats start rolling in.
A little under a fortnight ago, I wrote asking why nobody with any real power would do a single thing about GB News and its ever-expanding repertoire of bigotry, specifically its homophobia. I have also been posting daily on social media, carefully documenting each flagrant breach of the rules and demanding that something actually be done about it.
Since then, things have snowballed beyond my wildest imagination, to the point I had one of the channel’s flagship presenters sliding into my Instagram DMs to inform me I’d be “hearing from [his] lawyer”. Oh dear!
Unfortunately, given the circumstances, I’m calling his bluff. I refuse to play his game, nor will I be intimidated into silence. Here’s the full story as to how we got here.
Let’s go back to Sunday, 5th July. On Alex Armstrong Tonight – keep that name in mind – GB News predictably ran a segment about London Pride, which had taken place a day prior.
On the panel alongside Armstrong was former Liberal Democrat councillor Matthew Hulbert, and Catholic commentator Caroline Farrow. During this segment, Farrow told the nation, word for word, that Pride has become about celebrating “bestiality and even ‘Minor Attracted People’ – you know, paedophiles.”
If you read my last post, you’ll recognise the pattern. It’s the third time in three weeks that GB News has put a version of the very same smear on air – that gay people are an inherent danger to children – after Based and Bougie’s invented statistics and, most recently, Sharron Davies’ turn (which we’ll come to later).
After I drew attention to this second instance of shameless homophobia, things quickly began to pick up. The complaints started rolling in thick and fast, and Farrow’s comments were being discussed by the likes of PinkNews, to whom GB News very graciously issued a statement: her rhetoric, they insisted, had been “robustly and repeatedly challenged by two other contributors.”
What I find interesting, though, is how they pulled the entire episode of Alex Armstrong Tonight from their YouTube channel at the same time. Thankfully, their apparent company-wide ineptitude meant they left it up on their own website, where you can go and watch it for yourself.
I certainly have – more times than I care to admit – whilst also making sure to carefully transcribe all six minutes of what was said following Farrow’s accusation.
In total fairness, I’ll address the one line of defence they might strain to reach for. If you listen carefully, you can hear Hulbert say “not at all” at one point – but listen to when he says it. It lands before Farrow ever reaches the word “paedophiles”, muffled and uttered underneath her while she’s still speaking – which is why it won’t appear in any subtitles or transcript. It definitively was not a “robust” challenge to the slur, because it hadn’t been said yet.
So, what happens after she does say it? Farrow says Pride is about “celebrating paedophiles” on live television, and here are the “robust”, “repeated” challenges: Hulbert shakes his head silently, saying nothing. Armstrong, the presenter, smirks, nods, says “yeah” twice and offers a stirring rebuttal with, “I went to Pride last year… I don’t think it was full of paedophiles, but I’m sure there are nefarious people.” He then follows it up with an unverified anecdote about children near a sex toy stall.
That’s it. The claim isn’t referenced again during the rest of the segment. I’ll let you decide whether that qualifies as “robustly and repeatedly challenged”, because I can confidently argue it doesn’t.
Which brings us to the threat of legal action.
Alex Armstrong – a gay man himself, no less – sat on a panel while his guest equated LGBTQ+ people to paedophiles, said “yeah”, and chipped in with his own affirming story. Despite that, he has somehow concluded that the villain of this story is me, a mere content creator who shared a clip of Armstrong’s own words verbatim.
It started as a response to a comment I’d left on Armstrong’s Instagram page four days prior, telling him to have some shame over the segment that had aired the night before. He informed me I’d “deliberately cut off a clip” to spread “misinformation and fake news”, that “no Ofcom rules were broken”, and that “due balance and impartiality were shown – something you may not be familiar with yourself.” That’s a very self-aware dig from a man shilling for the least-trusted news channel in the UK.
Then came the sign off: “If you continue, you will be hearing from my lawyer. That’s a final warning.”
I presume the intention was to scare me instead of crack me up, but it unfortunately had the latter effect. Imagine! A final warning from a presenter on the channel that has built its entire brand on the sacred, inviolable, chest-beating principle of free speech – so much so that a guest can brand me a paedophile by association on primetime television. Rather less of it, it seems, for the civilian with a TikTok account pointing out the fact that she’d done it.
Except it wasn’t the final warning, because he then surfaced in my message requests with some long, meandering bollocks that didn’t make a lot of sense at all, much like his broadcasting. It went on for a while but never quite landed, informing me that I was “defaming” him and directing “hatred and abuse” his way by “misrepresenting” him. A fascinating use of “misrepresenting”, given that my great offence was pressing play on something he said (or failed to say) during a conversation in which LGBTQ+ people were grossly misrepresented. Then came the second final warning, this one over a single Instagram comment that had sat there untouched for four days without anyone noticing it.
Finally, having spent several paragraphs bemoaning the “hatred” he’d endured from being quoted accurately, he asked me for a comment on someone else’s Instagram post that I’d shared to my story, lifting it clean out of context and attributing it to me. He then proceeded to screenshot that out-of-context repost and share it to his own story that same evening, captioning it with “the be kind far-left today, everyone”. He wanted a comment because he was planning to broadcast it to the entire country that very night. As you may expect, he didn’t get that comment.
The next morning, I sat down with a cup of tea and eagerly scrubbed through Armstrong’s GB News appearance to see if he’d followed through with his thinly-veiled threat of retaliation. Did he do it? Did he fuck. It presumably dawned on him sometime between sending the message and going live that pointing a national audience directly at the campaign I’ve been running for three weeks might not be the best tactical move.
What gives his game away is that I’m not the only one who has spoken out about GB News. Since my last post in which I bemoaned the radio silence, the brilliant folks at Good Law Project have also highlighted Caroline Farrow’s recent comments, comparing them directly to Josh Howie’s “paedos” slur last year – they took the channel to task over it and won. Bimini has very graciously joined the fight, designing an easy-to-use form that has led to a monumental surge in Ofcom complaints. Zack Polanski co-signed an open letter to the regulator, urging them to take action.
Alex Armstrong could have picked a fight with any of them, but he came for me instead. You have to question why a man so supremely confident that “no Ofcom rules were broken” is threatening to chase the smallest voice in the room with solicitors, rather than simply posting the evidence of these so-called robust, repeated challenges he’s so certain exist. If it’s all there on the record, as he insists, it should be the easiest thing in the world to prove me wrong. Peculiar, then, that he’d sooner reach for the litigious option.
For the record, I don’t need to misrepresent Alex Armstrong. I have the footage, which is the entire point.
Unfortunately, Armstrong isn’t the only one who’d sooner perform for his usual audience than admit a mistake.
Cast your mind back to Based and Bougie – the dim-witted commentator who kicked this whole ordeal off three weeks ago, when she told the nation on The Saturday Five that gay men are “statistically more likely to sexually abuse their adopted children”, insisting she’d “seen the statistics” and it happens “time and time again”.
As you likely already know, she never produced those statistics. What she offered instead, when I called her out, were two long-discredited sources from a notorious anti-gay activist – neither of which showed anything remotely like what she’d claimed. When I pointed that out, she blocked me on every platform going.
And then, rather than address a single word of the actual charge (or apologise, like Howie reluctantly did last year), she did what any serious journalist would and filmed herself doubling down in the most vulgar manner possible.
On the day of London Pride, Based and Bougie tells her audience that she “heard [she] upset the demon— sorry, guys — the LGBTQLMNOFOPABC123ITVBBCWWE community”. In her retelling, she hadn’t smeared gay men as a danger to children on national television. Instead, she states that because she’s an ethnic minority, she has to “be accepting of them. I have to be accepting of men taking dick up the arse.” As someone very eloquently stated in the comment section of this video, “sense has been chasing this girl for a long time but she’s always been faster.”
The only part that truly upset me was the book. After her mockery of the acronym, she heads into Kensington & Chelsea Library and holds up a copy of Queer British Art, 1861-1867, using the pictures inside as a punchline. In an attempt to rise above the cheap bait of saying it’s because she can’t read the accompanying words, I will instead suggest that she should at least try.
Those two dates are not mere decoration. 1861 is the year in which Britain abolished the death penalty for sex between men, and 1967 was the year it finally – but only partially – stopped treating them as criminals. The century in between is men being hunted, blackmailed, imprisoned, chemically castrated and driven to early graves, purely for existing. She was holding over 100 years of persecution in her hand, using it as a prop to sneer at the people who survived it.
There was, of course, no apology. Based and Bougie has instead decided to continue her steadfast mission of equating LGBTQ+ people to paedophiles, often in the name of Christianity, with countless other Bible bashers agreeing with her and wishing everything from hell to capital punishment on us in response. It’s almost as if that’s the entire point.
Still, it kept coming. Three days after Farrow, GB News wheeled out Olympian-turned-TERF Sharron Davies alongside the repugnant Nana Akua to claim the government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill would jail parents for five years to failing to affirm their child’s identity.
That claim collapses the moment you read the actual Bill, which requires conduct that is abusive and causes serious harm, and targets people trying to force or suppress a child’s identity, not parents who are simply asking questions.
Then came the predictable line from Davies: “…and we have activist teachers, you know, we have teachers inside the system who are extremely… you know, LGBT-driven agendas and I… you know, I worry about that. I worry about this, this potential for grooming.”
Just to get ahead of GB News, before they try and claim any sort of “robust”, “repeated” challenge – there wasn’t one. Akua nodded along beside her and said “exactly”. It’s the same smear, but from a different, stinking mouth. They have a remarkable number of people willing to attack the LGBTQ+ community with the same line – even some within said community themselves.
Here’s what I suspect Alex Armstrong – and, by extension, GB News – is so rattled about. A couple of weeks ago, this was just me, alone, shouting into my phone.
That isn’t the case anymore. The complaints have sailed past 2,000 – 1,927 on the Based and Bougie segment, with 257 on Farrow’s racked up within 24 hours. The Good Law Project is preparing another formal complaint to Ofcom over the Farrow broadcast, drawing the very same line back to last year’s ruling that I’ve been hammering for weeks.
The likes of Metro and PinkNews have both covered it, with the latter even quoting my own videos back at me (a very surreal thing to read). Zack Polanski, Bimini and He.She.They collectively put their names to an open letter to Ofcom over the whole affair.
Cast your mind back to my last post, where I asked why not one person whose actual job this is could be bothered to say a word. Of course, the tabloids still haven’t – the papers that’ll clear a front page over a hundred Love Island complaints still can’t seem to locate this story. That doesn’t matter anymore. The people who genuinely do the work have showed up, and they’re loud. This is the difference a fortnight and a few thousand furious people can make – and it is precisely why a presenter would suddenly, urgently start trying to force my silence.
I won’t pretend it has all been smooth sailing. It hasn’t taken as much of a mental toll as some might expect (especially considering I was at my lowest three months ago), but I’ve still gotten my fair share of abuse. I made a Facebook page to share my videos on, but had to delete it a week later after one post garnered 225 comments, 99% of them negative. They ranged from “weirdo nonce”, “mentally ill bum bandit” and “lying little poof” to “bunch of creeps”, “stupid cunt scumbag” and “I’ll give you brain damage if you carry on.” That is the human cost of speaking up against people like this in 2026, so forgive me if I don’t give a single fuck about Alex Armstrong’s hurt feelings.
Unfortunately for those people, time has made me resilient. Something I haven’t yet mentioned throughout all of this is that I was on Twitter for a decade. I know exactly who these people are, and their motives. Glinner once called me a prick. This isn’t my first rodeo, but it’s the first one I’ve actually managed to sustain. Moving to France gave me the necessary distance and perspective I needed to confidently speak up, and as a British citizen who lived in the country for 28 years and saw first-hand how the likes of GB News began to bring it to its knees, I care deeply about stopping it.
I also have to acknowledge how none of this would exist without all of you – every person who complained to Ofcom, who signed the Section 28 petition, who reposted a video or tagged someone or left a supportive message. And everyone who has lent this campaign a larger platform than mine, from the campaigners to the public figures and politicians who have spoken up. You have eradicated my once-crippling self-doubt and given me the utmost confidence to keep fighting. Thank you, truly, from the very bottom of my heart. I could never have made this much noise on my own, and I am indescribably grateful for every single word of encouragement I’ve received throughout.
As you may have guessed, I won’t be stopping. Not over a baseless legal threat from a man who refuses to publish the evidence he claims is out there.
This is, and always was, the very same lie that Section 28 was built on: that we’re a danger to children and should be kept away. That law did untold damage to a generation and yet here we are, twenty-three years later, watching it get rebuilt brick-by-brick. The only thing that has ever stopped this is people flatly refusing to be quiet about it. As you can see, that’s starting to work.
Here’s where you come in:
Make the complaint, babes: Bimini’s guide to complaining makes it unbelievably quick and easy – all of the details are right there for you.
Sign the Section 28 public inquiry petition: We’ve got until the 24th of September to reach 100,000 signatures, and I absolutely believe it’s possible.
Share this: Tag the journalists still pretending that haven’t seen all of this occurring. Silence isn’t an option.
As for Mr. Armstrong, I’ll wait to hear from your lawyer. In the meantime, the segment that proves everything I said is still up on your employer’s website. I’d see to that before you worry about me.