Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology
We talked to mums about the Online Safety Act 👇 pic.twitter.com/rt6xJPWjVr
— Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) July 25, 2025
Former Reform chair Zia Yusuf said on Monday that the party would repeal the legislation if they got into Government.
'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws,' Mr Kyle told Sky News.
'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.
'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.'
Peter Kyle's comments on @SkyNews are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 29, 2025
Responding to Mr Kyle on a live stream on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation?
'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.'
He also reiterated his demand for an apology and added: 'We're not going to get one. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is to sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. That's what I'm going to do today. I think it makes sense. I'm deeply worried about the implications for free speech.'
Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide.
Mr Yusuf has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-Government speech'.
After being asked by Mr Farage to apologise on social media, Mr Kyle doubled down on his comments, claiming that wanting to 'overturn' the Act puts somebody 'on the side of predators'.
If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. https://t.co/oVArgFvpcW
— Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025
Mr Yusuf has claimed that Mr Kyle's remarks showed 'how deeply unserious' the Government was about child safety, adding: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.'
He told Sky News that the comments are 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena that I can remember. And that's quite a high bar, frankly.'
Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone.
'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.'
The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
22 minutes ago
- STV News
Disability payment should be simplified and made more accessible, review finds
An independent review of the Scottish disability payment has called for the benefit to be simplified and made more accessible. Led by charity leader Edel Harris, the review calls for automatic entitlement to the benefit in some cases. The report, commissioned by the Scottish Government, found while the adult disability payment is more 'compassionate' than the UK benefit it replaced, some people still face barriers and distress when applying. Ms Harris welcomed several changes from the previous assessments carried out by the UK Department for Work and Pensions, but said there is more to be done to deliver a human rights-based approach to the benefit that delivers for disabled people. The chairwoman of the Adult Disability Payment Review made more than 50 recommendations to improve the service. They include embedding a 'trauma-informed, stigma-free' approach to assessments, simplifying the application process, improving communication from staff, and reviewing the eligibility criteria. The report recommends the application process is made easier for those with fluctuating conditions and mental health problems, and calls for welfare advice services to be sustainably funded. Ms Harris said: 'Adult disability payment has been described by many as a step-change – kinder in tone and more dignified in approach. 'But too often, disabled people still find the system difficult to navigate, time-consuming, and anxiety-inducing. 'I heard consistently that if we are to realise social security as an investment in people, it is important to ensure that the eligibility criteria fulfil this goal. 'This review highlights the importance of a system that is not only compassionate, but practical and accessible. 'The recommendations are based on real experiences and a shared commitment to making adult disability payment work better for everyone who needs it.' Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'The Scottish Government's approach to providing social security is a compassionate one, based on dignity, fairness and respect, and I am very encouraged to read the feedback from disabled people that this has been reflected in their positive interactions with Social Security Scotland. 'While the UK Government seeks to make cuts to the vital support disabled people rely on, I want to make clear that we will not cut adult disability payment. 'Instead, we will work to protect and enhance Scotland's social security system, improving on what we have achieved so far. 'I very much appreciate the comprehensive recommendations this report provides for how we can improve adult disability payment.' Ms Somerville said the Scottish Government will 'carefully consider all of the recommendations' in the report and provide its initial response by January next year. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pay doctors more – by slashing the salaries of useless bureaucrats
British state dysfunction is so all-encompassing that working out where one problem begins and another ends is a time-consuming activity all on its own. Take the threatened resident doctors' strikes. It's not an unreasonable stance to point out that salaries are below their 2008 peak, and ask for a pay rise to make up for this. It is difficult to hand these out, however, when NHS productivity is down somewhere between 5pc and 11pc on 2019/20 levels, making pay awards hard to justify. This is particularly so when the Government is spending £111bn on debt interest this year alone, local council budgets have already been shredded and social care is a mess. If you're confused about how these things tie together, bear with me. Let's start with the doctors. The British Medical Association (BMA) claims that below-inflation pay rises means that resident (junior) doctors are worse off in pay terms today than they were 17 years ago. This is hard to dispute: whether you prefer to measure inflation with the Consumer Price Index or the Retail Price Index (RPI), the broad thrust is that prices have risen faster than pay for residents. In a market system, this would simply be how supply is matched to demand. In the UK healthcare system, however, there is no real market. The NHS is by far the largest provider of medical services in the country, which gives it an enormous degree of power over the wages of trained doctors. For those starting out, the deal is even worse. In order to qualify to practice in Britain, med school graduates must complete two years of training. This, in turn, takes place with NHS employers. It's not particularly difficult to see how this might lead to unwelcome compression of the wage premium for people who've just slogged through years of strenuous education: foundation year one doctors earn above median but below mean UK wages, with foundation year two still falling below the 75th percentile for the economy as a whole. That there could be a relatively straightforward way to raise the pay of doctors: abolish the NHS, and let the market work. Unfortunately, given that Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that he would never, under any circumstances, pay for a loved one to be treated privately rather than wait their turn on an NHS list, this option is probably off the table. This same opposition to reform and private sector involvement makes it hard to see a clean route to restoring lost productivity in the health service in the near future. In other words, if we're going to give doctors a pay rise, the money will have to come from other budgets. Quite a lot of money, as it happens. The BMA wants 'pay restoration' to 2008 levels. So do many others: it is a testament to almost two decades of economic mismanagement that private sector wages earlier this year were also below their 2008 peak. With the BMA increasingly aggressive in its negotiating stance, its critics are entitled to note that countries like Australia and Canada are far more stringent in restricting the ability of doctors to strike. Carry on in this vein, and they may well lose the sympathies of the public altogether. Assume for a moment though that we choose to grant this rise. The increase the resident doctors are asking for is enough to make up for a 21pc fall in wages, so a raise in the region of 27pc. According to the Nuffield Trust, each 1pc uptick in resident doctors' pay costs around £51m. The total cost of a 27pc rise would be somewhere in the region of £1.4bn. This is excessive, but it's a fair point that doctors may well feel undervalued relative to other jobs. It can't feel particularly good for resident doctors on £46,000, for instance, to see the NHS hiring in diversity commissars on salaries of £122,000. And it doesn't seem quite right for highly skilled workers who work long hours in unpleasant conditions, risking exposure to dangerous infectious diseases, to be paid less than unemployable Whitehall apparatchiks dialling into Zoom calls in their dressing gowns. Here, then, is a modest proposal. The total public sector pay bill was £270bn in 2023/24. If we can cut it by 0.5pc, then the doctors can have their pay rise. Figures from the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest that local government spending on diversity roles cost roughly £23m in 2023, alongside £13 million in the NHS. Thirty-six million towards a £1.4bn black hole is not a promising start. In fact, even taking the maximal savings implied by one estimate of public sector spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs – £557m a year – would still only get us a third of the way towards paying for it. And not all of these savings would be free to spend. Local government finances are in a shambolic state, with real budgets down 9pc on their 2010 levels. The slow squeeze of rising social care, school transport and housing costs, meanwhile, is eroding waste simply by erasing discretionary spending. Any savings made on woke waste might have to go towards social care, or if it does go to the NHS, it may actually risk making it worse. How, you ask? The single biggest productivity challenge facing NHS executives is discharging patients on time. Blocked beds stymie the flow of patients through hospitals, in turn slowing the flow of patients off waiting lists. These delays are most often caused by waiting for support for the patient at home – often adult social care arranged by local government bodies scrabbling for cash. Spending more on social care might be better for NHS productivity than actually spending on the NHS itself. At this point, however, I have some good news: we can do this, and still restore doctors' pay in real terms. The BMA's calculation of the fall in doctors' pay since 2010 is fundamentally flawed. It uses the now discredited RPI measure of inflation which is known to overestimate rises in the price level (among other problems, when prices rise and then fall back to their starting level, the RPI can still show prices as having risen). This is obviously absurd, and after years of dragging its heels, the Government conceded as much. As a result, from 2030 onwards the RPI is set to simply mirror an alternative, better-calculated measure of inflation, saving the Government a couple of billion each year in the process. In other words, the doctors' pay demands seemed excessive because they were excessive. If the BMA had used better measures of inflation, they would be looking for a 5pc pay rise, or £255m – less than half of the estimated DEI spend. And this, in turn, gives us our desired outcome: we can give the doctors actual pay restoration, pay for it by cutting public sector jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place, and have some money leftover to ease the strain on social care into the bargain, improving NHS productivity – an all-round win for taxpayers.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Ukraine's parliament to consider restoring power of anti-graft agencies
KYIV, July 31 (Reuters) - Ukrainian lawmakers on Thursday are expected to consider a bill restoring the independence of the country's two main anti-corruption agencies, aiming to defuse a political crisis that has shaken faith in President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's wartime leadership. Thousands of protesters rallied in Kyiv and other cities in recent days in a rare show of discontent after lawmakers led by Zelenskiy's ruling party rushed through amendments last week defanging the respected agencies. Zelenskiy reversed course after the outcry and under pressure from top European officials, who warned Ukraine was jeopardising its bid for EU membership by curbing the powers of its anti-graft authorities. Demonstrations had continued even after he submitted the new bill restoring their independence, with hundreds rallying near the presidential administration in Kyiv late on Wednesday to chants of "Shame!" and "The people are the power!". "I really want parliament to vote (for the new measure) just as quickly as it did last time," said protester Kateryna Kononenko, 36, referring to last week's fast-tracked approval of the controversial amendments. Activists also called for demonstrations near parliament ahead of Thursday's vote in an attempt to pressure lawmakers to approve the new bill. Eradicating graft and shoring up the rule of law are key requirements for Kyiv to join the EU, which Ukrainians see as critical to their future as they fend off a Russian invasion. Last week's amendments had given Zelenskiy's hand-picked general prosecutor the power to transfer cases away from the anti-graft agencies and reassign prosecutors - a step critics had said was designed to protect allies from prosecution. While much smaller, the rallies of the past week have sparked comparisons to Ukraine's 2014 Maidan revolution, when protesters toppled a president they accused of corruption and heavy-handed rule. More than two-thirds of Ukrainians support the recent protests, according to a recent survey by Ukrainian pollster Gradus Research. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) have stepped up a closely watched campaign against graft since Russia's February 2022 invasion. They have produced charges against lawmakers and senior government officials, including a then-deputy prime minister who was accused last month of taking a $345,000 kickback. Speaking to Reuters last Friday, after Zelenskiy's reversal, NABU chief Semen Kryvonos said he expected pressure against his agency to continue, fuelled by what he described as corrupt forces uninterested in cleaning up Ukraine. He added that he and other anti-corruption officials felt a greater sense of responsibility following the protests, but also called on the country's leadership to help their effort. "This responsibility must be shared with the government, which needs to react and say, 'Okay, there's corruption here - let's destroy it.'"
