Ofcom has launched a formal investigation into GB News after the regulator received thousands of complaints about Laurence Fox’s comments on Dan Wootton’s show on Tuesday.
The announcement came after Dan Wootton’s contract as a columnist for MailOnline was terminated, according to a spokesperson for the news website’s parent company.
In a statement, Ofcom said: “We have launched an investigation into GB News under our rules on offence, after receiving around 7,300 complaints about Tuesday’s episode of Tonight with Dan Wootton.”
Wootton was suspended by GB News on Wednesday, after a row over comments made by actor-turned-political-activist Fox, who had been a fellow presenter for the channel.
Fox was taken off air following the remarks he made on air about female PoliticsJOE journalist Ava Evans, which have been described as “unacceptable, unjustifiable and indefensible”.
One of his comments included asking: “Who would want to shag that?”
A spokesperson for DMG Media, the parent company of MailOnline, said: “Following events this week, DMG Media can confirm that Dan Wootton’s freelance column with MailOnline – which had already been paused – has now been terminated, along with his contract.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
As Fox’s comments drew widespread condemnation, Wootton offered an apology to Ms Evans in a public post on X, formerly known as Twitter, in which he described the reporter as “brilliant”.
He apologised “unreservedly” for what was said during the show and conceded he should have done this immediately on air.
Wootton, who could be seen laughing as Fox made his remarks, reiterated his “regret” over the incident in another social media post on Wednesday morning “having looked at the footage” of what he described as a “bizarre exchange”.
“I should have intervened immediately,” he said, adding: “I know I should have done better. I’m devastated…”
Image: Actor-turned-political-activist Laurence Fox
Fox has refused to apologise and appeared to suggest GB News was aware of what he was roughly going to say in advance.
Ms Evans said she felt she has been put into the middle of a furore she didn’t ask to be involved in.
After the incident, she said she was “really hurt” by Fox’s comments which were about her “body rather than her work”.
Fox’s comments about Ms Evans aired on GB News following the journalist’s appearance on the BBC’s Politics Live, on which she discussed topics including mental health.
He was asked about Ms Evans’ critical comments about suggestions there should be a minister for men to address mental ill health. She later said her remarks were “a little rash” and said she was “actually very interested in a brief for a minister on young men’s mental health”.
Fox said: “Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman, ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel?”
“That little woman has been fed… spoon-fed oppression day after day after day… starting with the lie of the gender wage gap, and she’s sat there and I’m going, if I met you in a bar and that was like sentence three, chances of me just walking away are just huge,” Fox added.
“We need powerful, strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves, we don’t need these sort of feminist 4.0… they’re pathetic and embarrassing. Who would want to shag that?”
Ofcom has said it received a number of complaints about the incident.
“We are assessing these complaints against our broadcast rules and will publish the outcome as quickly as possible,” a spokesperson added.
Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, said the regulator’s rules “are designed to protect audiences from offensive and harmful material, and to uphold the integrity of broadcast news and current affairs programming, while always ensuring that freedom of expression is front and centre in every decision we take.”
“This is highly valued by audiences and central to our democracy,” she added.
“The decisions we take, always based on facts and evidence once a programme has aired, are vital if we are to protect our vibrant media landscape. We continue to apply and enforce these rules without fear or favour.”
Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.
A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.
A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.
UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.
Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead
It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.
The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.
But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”
Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.
“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.
Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.
Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.
“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”
Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
Image: Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.
A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”
Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.
Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.
The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.