Ofcom receives complaints after LBC host James O'Brien read out antisemitic message about Jewish children - as he issues apology
James O'Brien sparked fury for reading the antisemitic comments without challenging them while discussing the conflict in Gaza during yesterday's programme.
The 53-year-old host was allegedly sent the message from someone called Chris in Oxford who said his wife had been taught at a 'Shabbat school' in Hertfordshire. The listener claimed she was also told 'one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives'.
Mr O'Brien read out the message before a shortened version was shared by LBC on social media, then deleted after a furious backlash from Jewish organisations.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism said it was a 'modern blood libel on national radio', and communications regulator Ofcom has received a number of complaints.
When reading out the message yesterday, Mr O'Brien said: 'I'm fascinated by objectivity, which is why I'm going to read out this from Chris, because you do find yourself wondering how people can be looking at the same world you're looking at and arriving at such completely different conclusions.
'The polling we looked at in Ha'aretz, displaying support not just for ethnic cleansing, but also for genocide, on levels that many of us would find terrifying.
'And of course it's not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – 'I'm loving the show' – thank you, Chris – 'and the high quality of callers today, but I do think it's worth saying that these warped views are not just an Israeli problem.
''My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed.
''Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides' – as Chris points out – 'then they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes'.'
A shortened version of this was then shared by LBC in a social media video post, with the caption: ''At Shabbat school, my wife was taught that one Jewish life is worth a thousand Arab lives'. Listener Chris outlines to James O'Brien the 'danger' of 'propaganda processes' spreading.'
What did James O'Brien say on LBC?
Original broadcast yesterday
'I'm fascinated by objectivity, which is why I'm going to read out this from Chris, because you do find yourself wondering how people can be looking at the same world you're looking at and arriving at such completely different conclusions. The polling we looked at in Ha'aretz, displaying support not just for ethnic cleansing, but also for genocide, on levels that many of us would find terrifying. And of course it's not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – 'I'm loving the show' – thank you, Chris – 'and the high quality of callers today, but I do think it's worth saying that these warped views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides' – as Chris points out – 'then they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes'.'
Apology today
'This is very important. At this time yesterday on the show, I read out a message from a listener called Chris who said that his wife had been brought up in the Jewish faith and had attended what he described as a 'Shabbat school'. He went on to make further claims about what he said she had been taught in that school. As with all the texts and messages that I read out on the programme, I did so in good faith, but the message has understandably upset a lot of people, and I regret taking those unsubstantiated claims at face value, and I'm genuinely sorry for that. It is very important that I get that out there, and thank you for your attention.'
This post has since been deleted by LBC.
But the comments sparked fury, with the Jewish Leadership Council describing the unchallenged read-out as 'irresponsible and dangerous journalism'.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said it was 'urgently seeking a meeting with senior executives' at LBC, and called on the station to take Mr O'Brien off air.
And the Jewish News pointed out that 'while there is certainly a concept of 'Sunday school', or 'cheder', for Jewish children, there is no such thing as 'Shabbat school'.'
The broadcast has also allegedly been reported to the Metropolitan Police - with one complaint claiming the programme spread 'lies about Jews', according to The Telegraph.
Ofcom confirmed to MailOnline that it had received complaints about the content, which were now being assessed.
While Mr O'Brien presented his show as normal today, he addressed the controversy at 11.48am, which was the same time he read out the message yesterday.
He said: 'This is very important. At this time yesterday on the show, I read out a message from a listener called Chris who said that his wife had been brought up in the Jewish faith and had attended what he described as a 'Shabbat school'.
'He went on to make further claims about what he said she had been taught in that school.
'As with all the texts and messages that I read out on the programme, I did so in good faith, but the message has understandably upset a lot of people, and I regret taking those unsubstantiated claims at face value, and I'm genuinely sorry for that.
'It is very important that I get that out there, and thank you for your attention.'
A Campaign Against Antisemitism spokesman told MailOnline today: 'This was a modern blood libel on national radio, amplified by a host who likely wouldn't think twice about cutting off the statement were it promoting such grotesque falsehoods about another minority. No such generosity for the Jews.
'The suggestion that one 'side' of this conflict is the genocidal monsters of Hamas who slaughtered 1,200 people and took some 250 hostage, and the other 'side' is the Jewish community in Hertfordshire, is not only a baseless fiction and totally repugnant but to broadcast it is unbelievably reckless.
'It is practically an invitation to disaffected people to target Jews in the UK – why not, if they are a 'side' in this conflict? It is deplorable the depths that some talkshow hosts will sink to inflame their listeners and drive up ratings. The consequences are borne by British Jews. We are formally complaining to Ofcom.
'While we welcome LBC's deletion of the post and Mr O'Brien's apology, perhaps he might take a break from moralising to the nation and reflect on why a listener like that understood that his was exactly the right show to promote this bile, and why Mr O'Brien himself was only too ready to treat the claims as entirely plausible and convenient to his narrative.
'What does that say about his own prejudices and views on certain topics to which British Jews are particularly sensitive?'
After yesterday's broadcast, a Jewish Leadership Council spokesperson said: 'For James O'Brien to uncritically read out this outrageous claim as the truth is irresponsible and dangerous journalism.
'At a time of heightened antisemitism when synagogues and Jewish schools require increased security, the threat created by such unsubstantiated claims is real. LBC must urgently investigate and explain how this was allowed to be read out by their presenter.'
Andrew Gilbert, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, added: 'We are urgently seeking a meeting with senior executives following the completely unacceptable and highly offensive comments made by James O'Brien on his LBC show today.
'Broadcasting such a transparent falsehood and demonising the British Jewish community – at a time when antisemitism in this country is at terrifyingly high levels – must have clear consequences. LBC should apologise and take Mr O'Brien off the air.'
An Ofcom spokeswoman told MailOnline today: 'We are assessing the complaints against our rules, but are yet to decide whether or not to investigate.'
MailOnline has also contacted LBC and the Metropolitan Police for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Letter: Lord Lipsey obituary
Among his multiple accomplishments and achievements, the commitment of David Lipsey to classical music education stood out. Unlike too many politicians, who merely talk the talk about the arts, David walked the walk. He was chair of governors at Trinity Laban Conservatoire, 2012-17, leading its transformation into Britain's first university level college of both music and dance, and establishing Trinity Laban as the inclusive and innovative creative institution it is today. He often spoke up for the arts, and for music education in particular, in the House of Lords, where he chaired the all-party classical music group. He also put his money where his mouth was, supporting young pianists and other artists with generous endowments.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Doctors strikes will be banned under the Tories like police and prison officers, vows Kemi Badenoch
Doctors strikes will be banned under a Conservative government in the same way as police and prison officers, Kemi Badenoch has vowed. The Tory party leader today announced she would amend the law to bar the protests as she insisted the British Medical Association (BMA) is 'out of control'. It comes following 11 strikes in the past 18 months which Ms Badenoch said had resulted in patients dying. Her comments were made on GB News amid the ongoing five-day series of strikes by resident doctors in support of a pay claim. Urging Sir Keir Starmer to take similar action, Ms Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. Medicine is a vocation – not just a job. That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too. 'These strikes will have a significant economic effect, but they will also mean cancelled operations, worry for families of the sick, and suffering for those who are unwell. We know that previous strike action by doctors even led to some patients losing their lives. 'That is why Conservatives are stepping in, and setting out common sense proposals to protect patients, and the public finances. And we are making an offer in the national interest – we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Doctors hold lives in their hands. No one should lose critical healthcare because of strikes but that's what's happening now. That's why a Conservative government led by me would ban doctors' strikes, just like we do the army and police. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 27, 2025 Police, the military and prison officers are banned from taking strike action under the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. The Conservatives would amend this to include doctors. Action short of a strike such as working to rule and banning overtime would still be permitted - with doctors remaining able to unionise through the BMA, like the police, which has the police federation to represent members' interests. Minimum service levels have also been proposed by the Conservatives, which would aim to ensure a basic service provision in not just healthcare but other essential sectors like education and transport. The party has argued proposed changes would bring the UK in line with other nations such as Australia and Canada who have tighter restrictions on doctors strikes, as well as European nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal that have minimum service levels laws in place across their health services. Under Australia's Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission is required to suspend or terminate strike action that endangers the safety, health or welfare of the population. Attempts to block doctors' strike action are likely to be challenged in the courts, specifically under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Police officers have been banned from taking strike action since 1919 when the Police Act made it a criminal offence and all armed forces members are bound by the King's Regulations which make unionisation illegal. The Conservatives' proposed primary legislation would restrict the ability of for doctors at all levels to engage in strike action as regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This would be done through exempting doctors from the part of the act that gives the right to strike. The Conservatives said they will also look at introducing back-to-work orders in a similar vein to other European countries. Stuart Andrew MP, Shadow Health Secretary, said: 'The Conservative Party has always respected the important work that healthcare professionals do, but enough is enough. 'The BMA has taken our NHS hostage and used this Labour Government's weakness to demand more and more – with taxpayers and patients left to suffer the consequences. 'As our health service faces yet another round of damaging strike action, the Conservatives are calling time. If Labour were serious about cutting waiting lists and delivering the health system our country deserves, rather than just kowtowing to the unions, they would back our plans.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
New polling shows Reform is winning over Britain's Christians
When we look at how people vote in elections and why they choose certain parties, analysis often focuses on age, education, location or socioeconomic status. Less discussed in Britain is religion. But close to two-thirds of its adults are still religious – expressing either a religious identity, holding religious beliefs, or taking part in religious activities. For the one-in-three adults in Britain who are Christian, this identity remains an important influence on their political behaviour. New polling, published here for the first time, shows how Reform UK is disrupting our previous understanding of how Christians vote in British elections. The relationship between Britain's Christian communities and the major political parties goes back centuries. The Conservative party has been very close to English Anglicanism since its emergence in the mid-19th century. Catholics and free-church Protestants (such as Baptists and Methodists) have tended towards the Labour and Liberal/Liberal Democrat parties. Even as Britain has become more secular, these relationships have persisted. Anglicans, for example, have tended to vote Conservative even when the party was in dire straits. In the 2024 election, 39% of Anglicans voted Tory even as the party's national vote share fell to 24%. Since the 1980s and particularly in elections since 2015, however, we have started to see changes to the Christian vote. The traditional Catholic attachment to Labour has deteriorated, as has Labour's appeal to other Christian communities such as Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Instead, driven by the rising salience of social values (attitudes towards immigration, social change and national identity) as a determinant of political support, the socially conservative leanings of some Christians of all stripes has led to increased support for the Conservatives. And those who traditionally did so – the Anglicans – have become even more supportive. The result has been a steady coalescing of the Christian vote behind the Conservatives. But now, new polling by YouGov (on June 23-24 2025) for the University of Exeter reveals that this realignment is being disrupted by the growing popularity of Reform UK. Instead of asking who people would vote for tomorrow, a nationally representative sample of 2,284 adults was asked how likely they were to ever vote for each major party, on a scale from zero (very unlikely) to ten (very likely). While not the same as a direct question about how someone would vote in an election, the likelihood question provides a much richer measure of the strength of their support for all of the major parties. Among Anglicans, Labour remains deeply unpopular: over half gave the party a 0. In contrast, the Conservatives still enjoy strong support among Anglicans, with 35% giving them a vote likelihood of seven or higher – the kind of support associated with voting for the party in an election. Reform, however, has caught up. Despite only 15% of Anglicans voting Reform in 2024, 38% now rate their likelihood of voting for the party as high. That's the same as the proportion who are strongly opposed to Reform – showing that while the party polarises Anglicans more than the Conservatives, Reform could win as much Anglican support as the Tories in an election. Catholics show a similar trend. Labour's traditional support is eroding: 40% of Catholics said they had zero likelihood of voting Labour, while 29% are strong supporters. As with Conservatives for the Anglican vote, Reform is almost level-pegging with Labour for the Catholic vote at 28%. It has even supplanted the Conservatives, of whom 22% of Catholics are strong supporters. It is not yet clear why this is happening. The distinction of Christian (and non-Christian) voting patterns is not an artefact of age – there are many studies that prove this is the case. It may be that Reform's stances on issues such as immigration resonate with Christians' concerns to the extent that they are willing to set aside their historic party loyalties. Or it may be that Christians are as prone as other British voters to turn to Reform out of frustration with the performances of Labour and the Conservatives in office. Swing voters and party competition This data also shows the extent to which voters' support for parties overlaps or is exclusive. In other words, which voters have a high vote likelihood for only one party (and so are likely committed to backing that party in an election), which do not have such high likelihoods for any party (and so will probably not vote at all), and which have similarly high likelihoods for more than one party (effectively swing voters, persuadable one way or the other). Among the religiously unaffiliated, 29% aren't strong supporters of any party. For Catholics, it's 26%. Anglicans are more politically anchored, however, with only 20% in this category. While traditionally, we would have expected this to reflect Anglicans' greater tendency to support the Tories, only 17% of Anglicans are strong supporters of only that party, compared with 21% who are firmly behind Reform. These aren't swing voters; they've switched sides. A further 12% of Anglicans have high vote likelihoods for both the Tories and Reform. These are swing voters that the two parties could realistically expect to win over. Catholics are even more fragmented. Only 13% are strong supporters of Labour alone, along with 12% and 17% who are strong supporters of the Conservatives and Reform alone, respectively. Few Catholics are torn between Labour and the other parties, but 5% are swing voters between the Conservatives and Reform: the Tories' gradual winning over of Catholics over the last 50 years is also being challenged by the appeal of Reform. The party has provided a socially conservative alternative to the Conservatives, with the result that the Christian vote has become more fragmented. The Tories are no longer the main beneficiaries of Labour's loss of its traditional Catholic vote. In addition, Reform is as popular as the Conservatives among Anglicans, and as popular as Labour among Catholics. This suggests it is appealing across the traditional denominational divide more successfully than either of the major parties. If there is to be a single party that attracts the bulk of Britain's Christian support, at this point it is far more likely to be Reform than anyone else.
