We are, of course, disappointed with today's decision - but not entirely surprised given the narrow parameters we were fighting within.
(click above for Dr Naomi Wolf's witness statement - delivered outside the court as she was not allowed to deliver it orally in court. Plus, my statement and Mark's - which were given in support of specific grounds in the case.)
This started as a battle between GB News and Ofcom. GB News sacrificed Mark whilst he was recovering from two heart attacks in an attempt to appease Ofcom. As noted in the court's decision, Ofcom was able to reach its decisions only by agreement with GB News - which avoided a fine being imposed.
We have been hamstrung from the very beginning by GB News' refusal to submit our and Dr Wolf's evidence to Ofcom during the investigative process. And, unfortunately, that meant the court cited Ofcom decision points without benefit of Mark's evidence.
Further, as to the second show with Dr Naomi Wolf, GB News refused even to provide the initial letter of inquiry from Ofcom to Mark. Instead, GB News used my request as an opportunity to attempt to force Mark to sign a general non-disclosure agreement. As I testified under oath, I advised Mark not to sign the NDA with GB News.
The court - unfortunately - refused to hear the grounds that we had not had an opportunity to put our evidence to Ofcom. Thus, Mark's evidence was not entered and not considered.
Ofcom failed in its duty of candor to the court to disclose the number of shows that they made a decision about related to health concerns - and specifically those of the covid area - most famously, the Lorraine episode which - according to our brilliant stats man Jamie Jenkins - was most analogous to our first show. Thus, the court concluded:
"There is no evidence before me that Ofcom was predisposed to take the side of the Government during the pandemic."
Ofcom also pointed to (and the court accepted as read) a research report from July 2017 entitled "Health and wealth claims in programming: audience attitudes to potential harm" which Ofcom claimed to use as its guide. What Ofcom failed to disclose to the court, is that this report was not even available on their site - having been archived in 2018 - and only brought back to life two months ago after inquiry from our legal team.
And, even more to the point, this report was specific to a clear directive/ call to action advising alternative treatments (herbs, spiritual, whatever) to conventional treatments. This was not the case here.
The only call to action Mark made was for a Royal Commission to look into the disturbing trendline the UKHSA numbers indicated - a trend that has, in fact, materialized.
We have requested an extension of time to consider our next steps and will provide an update in due course.
Mark stands behind his accurate reporting of the UKHSA numbers. He is grateful to the many people who have supported him - including the many who came to court last month including Dr Wolf who has been unfairly smeared by Ofcom.
We remain deeply disturbed for the vaccine victims who are literally maimed and literally dead because they took a vaccine the government said was safe.
To support Mark, please consider joining The Mark Steyn Club, purchasing a gift certificate at the Steyn Store, or booking a cabin on our upcoming cruise - which includes special guest and friend Dan Wootton, a former GB News colleague and fellow Ofcom victim.
