A GB News contributor called for every asylum seeker to be castrated before describing those arriving in Britain as invaders.
The extraordinary proposal was made during an immigration debate on The Late Show Live on 20 September.
Presenter Ben Leo challenged the contributor, who was addressed on air as Hillary, but moved the discussion on after she repeatedly stood by her comments.
He then told viewers she had been joking.
Campaign group NewsCord is now urging people to complain to Ofcom, arguing that the exchange may have breached broadcasting rules covering offensive material, hate speech and derogatory treatment.
‘What, all of them?’
The discussion began with criticism of the government’s approach to violence against women and girls and the role of migration.
Hillary argued that Britain needed to remove what she called the “pull factors” encouraging people to cross the Channel and introduce more severe deterrents.
She then suggested that “anyone that’s seeking asylum needs to be castrated”.
Leo immediately asked: “What, all of them?”
“Yes,” she replied.
The presenter pointed out that being an asylum seeker did not make somebody a sex offender and described the proposed punishment as “bonkers”.
Hillary continued to defend the idea, arguing that it would stop people coming to Britain.
When Leo told her that the country could not pre-emptively castrate every asylum seeker, she replied: “Why not? They’re invading our nation.”
At no stage during the exchange did she withdraw the proposal or say that she had been joking.
Another guest leaves the response to Ben Leo
Leo then turned to another contributor, Matthew, and asked for his view.
Matthew declined to engage with the proposal. Instead, he told Leo that he had never previously seen him appear so shocked by something said by somebody on his own side of the political argument.
He left the response to the presenter.
Leo laughed before saying: “I think she was joking around.”
NewsCord says he suggested twice that the remarks were a joke, despite Hillary not describing them that way herself.
That distinction matters. A presenter can challenge an extreme comment or ask whether it was intended seriously. What happened here was different: the contributor defended the proposal several times, then the presenter supplied the explanation after moving the discussion on.
NewsCord launches Ofcom campaign
NewsCord has launched a campaign encouraging viewers to submit complaints to the media regulator.
Its complaint template asks Ofcom to consider whether the programme breached Rules 2.3, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Broadcasting Code.
Rule 2.3 requires broadcasters to ensure potentially offensive material is justified by its context. Ofcom says this can include discriminatory language, humiliation and violations of human dignity. It also says broadcasters should provide appropriate information where that could reduce or prevent offence.
Rule 3.2 covers hate speech, while Rule 3.3 concerns abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups and communities.
Those rules do not prevent broadcasters from interviewing people with extreme or offensive opinions. Ofcom explicitly recognises the importance of freedom of expression and the public interest in scrutinising challenging views.
However, the regulator says context is crucial. That includes the purpose of the programme, the position of the speaker and whether the remarks received sufficient challenge.
NewsCord argues that Leo’s initial objections were undermined when he subsequently told viewers the contributor had been joking.
No Ofcom ruling has been made, and the launch of a public complaint campaign does not mean the regulator has decided to investigate or found that GB News breached its rules.
The ‘joke’ was never explained by the person who made it
The exchange comes amid increasingly aggressive language about people crossing the Channel.
Protesters have surrounded accommodation sites, campaigners have targeted lifeboat crews and one anti-immigration activist is under investigation after slashing an inflatable boat while a rescue worker was still on board.
On BBC Question Time, Ash Sarkar recently condemned the attempt to present masked anti-immigration groups as patriots, arguing that intimidating communities and attacking boats was not patriotic behaviour.
The GB News contributor’s proposal went considerably further than demanding tougher border controls. It called for an irreversible physical punishment to be imposed on an entire group of people, including those never accused of committing a crime.
Leo did challenge that premise. He pointed out that asylum seekers were not all sex offenders and rejected the idea of punishing them in advance.
But the broadcast did not end with a retraction, an apology or a clear statement that the proposal was unacceptable.
Instead, the presenter decided it had been a joke.
Leave a Reply