“The Cost of Candour”

Original article

Ofcom vs Steyn/ Steyn vs Ofcom

It could be worse.

Mark could be banged up in Belmarsh like poor old Tommy.

[UPDATE: more on the corrupt two-tier UK judiciary breaking now.]

Today, Justice Farbey of the High Court in London ruled:

1) the costs demanded by Ofcom are to be sent for detailed assessment on the standard basis

2) there will be a payment on account of £50,000 by 19 November 2024

3) Costs of today to be paid by the Claimants, save in relation to the written submissions which will be paid at 50%

Mark will have twenty-one days to consider an appeal.

Ofcom had demanded £144,959.28, refused to provide detailed billing to justify that amount, and then twisted that to mock the actual harm they have caused Mark and Naomi Wolf:

(Steyn’s) post ad hoc attempt to downplay the importance of these Claims at §14.3 also stands in marked contrast to his own witness statement, in which he portrayed the alleged “chilling” effect of Ofcom’s decisions for freedom of expression is existential terms, going as far as to assert that their consequence had been to “utterly to kill our careers in the British Isles, and to see crude defamations of us recycled throughout the London papers as if they had the force of criminal convictions”.

Our costs attorney, Edward Strickland, in no way downplayed the importance of the claims but rather argued:

The total costs sought of £144,959.28 against a single party for a 1 day hearing (where the core bundle was a mere 144 pages, the agreed correspondence bundle was a mere 81 pages) is entirely disproportionate and not reasonable.

Our attorney was successful in obtaining an order that Ofcom’s billing must go through a detailed assessment.

Oh, and Ofcom also lied to Steyn about the status of their “investigation”:

“…In respect of the second decision, (Ofcom) failed to communicate that decision to (Steyn) properly and in accordance with (Ofcom’s) own guidelines.

In respect of the second decision, (Ofcom) had issued a preliminary decision on 6 February 2023. That should have been communicated to the Claimants.

That preliminary decision was not communicated to (Steyn) until 4 July 2023, after the final decision was made on 9 May 2023.

….This deprived (Steyn) of any opportunity of making any representation to (Ofcom) after the preliminary decision was made but before the final decision was made.

This position was made worse following (Steyn) writing to (Ofcom) on 20 March 2023 making enquiries and being told, in response, that investigations were ongoing.

By letter dated 23 March 2023, (Steyn) was advised that “Ofcom is also investigating another episode of the Mark Steyn programme broadcast on GB News on 4 October 2022. For your information …This investigation is ongoing, following our published procedures.”.

However, the preliminary decision had already been made without
input from (Steyn).”

If Ofcom is to be believed, it is mere coincidence that the exact same day Mark announced he would not be returning to GB News – is the same day they issued their preliminary decision sans a fine. Ok – about that bridge you’re selling…

To recap for our readers:

Mark hosted two shows on GB News in 2022 – one in April in which he called for a Royal Commission to investigate a disturbing trend in UKHSA numbers. And, the second in October which featured an interview with the brilliant and brave bestselling author Dr Naomi Wolf. Dr Wolf presented information regarding the Covid vaccine that had been obtained by court order and reviewed by over 2,000 experts – often referred to as “The Pfizer Papers”.

(The latter show received a number of complaints. Many of those, however, appear to be from people who didn’t even watch the show but were directed to complain at the behest of a presenter at a competing network.)

Ofcom commenced their “investigations” of GB News as the broadcast license holder. Over the course of several months, Ofcom never interviewed nor sought information from Mark or Dr Wolf.

Indeed, Ofcom took the position that they did not have to investigate either the safety or efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine in order to find it was “harmful” to raise any questions about it. That being the case, what were they “investigating” over the course of those several months? (That, and the identity of the supposed “expert” investigators, has never been disclosed.)

I put it to you (as they say in UK) that what was really happening behind the scenes was not an “investigation” but rather a negotiation between GB News and Ofcom. Silence Mark in exchange for no fine.*

(*recently, in a bizarre tweet, GB News presenter Bev Turner called on Ofcom to “apologize” and “refund” the “fine” Turner falsely claimed GB News had paid as a result of Dr Wolf’s appearance.)

The only “investigation” appears to have been from Ofcom’s partner, the laughably named “Full Fact”. They approached Dr Wolf shortly after the program for comment on an article they claimed to be writing but apparently abandoned after receiving her lawyer’s response along with supporting documentation. (Full Fact would have had a harder time defending itself against a defamation claim.)

The next day, Ofcom took over for their partner in this partisan pursuit – and eventually found a form of words to justify their finding that “harm” was caused despite their failing to present any information whatsoever as to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Incredibly, at the judicial review hearing in June, Justice Farbey went through the official government data Mark presented in his opening monologue of April 22nd – dubbed The Steyn Line – and confirmed with the agreement of the Ofcom lawyer that what Mark reported about the numbers was TRUE.

But truth is no defense (as Tommy Robinson learned yesterday) – and thus, they needed something – anything – to claim Mark’s accurate reporting and opinion – was “misleading”. So, Ofcom claimed that all would have been fine if he had cited the disclaimer on the government report. And, all their minions went forth and spouted the same nonsense.

But it is simply not true. Not only did the disclaimer appear on every single UKHSA graphic displayed full screen during Mark’s opening monologue.

The UKHSA themselves added this important note:

“Data on COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths is much less prone to bias, as testing is more complete, and so it is more valid to compare rates for these severe outcomes.”

So all the clever, clever people who claimed Mark didn’t account for “bias” – i.e. people who refuse the vax are tested less often yadda yadda – were completely wrong. As UKHSA confirmed. It was indeed “valid to compare” the rates for those with severe outcomes. This has been borne out by numerous, better studies, later. But, again, in the UK, truth is no defense.

Farbey’s decision was issued on July 31st of this year. My somewhat instant analysis of that (in addition to Ofcom’s lack of duty of candour to the court) appeared here. Today’s hearing on costs was a follow-up to the July decision.

If you are keen to support Mark in his work, please consider a gift certificate and/ or membership in The Mark Steyn Club. Every bit helps!

UPDATE: You may also give here.

Subscribe to DailyClout so you never miss an update!

• Email*

Δ