LBC host James O'Brien issues on-air apology after reading out antisemitic message about Jewish children - sparking raft of complaints to Ofcom
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 talk show 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 contacted LBC and the Metropolitan Police for comment.
Israel is continuing its campaign in the Gaza Strip against Hamas after the October 6 attacks saw around 1,200 Israelis killed during a militant incursion into the country.
More than 59,000 Palestinians have been killed since, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Around two thirds are women and children, according to previous casualty analysis by the UN.
The UK was among 28 countries to sign a letter calling on Israel to end the war in Gaza 'now' amid a growing humanitarian crisis in the region, which has been all but completely decimated by Israeli strikes.
Sir Keir Starmer was among the world leaders to express concern at the suffering endured by civilians in Gaza, which the statement noted had reached 'new depths'.
The Israeli model of delivering aid, the letter said, was 'dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity'.
More than 1,000 people seeking aid have been killed by Israeli forces while trying to get food, the UN's Human Rights Office said yesterday. Its claims could not be immediately verified.
A spokesperson for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the statement was 'disconnected from reality' while President Isaac Herzog maintained the state was operating 'according to international law' on a visit to Gaza on Wednesday.
Mediators in Qatar are hosting talks between Israel and Hamas on a 60-day ceasefire that could see hostages released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
Israel is demanding the dismantling of Hamas itself, while the militant terror group wants guarantees on a lasting truce, a withdrawal from Gaza and the free flow of aid.
James O'Brien's previous 'antisemitism' controversy
LBC host James O'Brien has previously found himself in hot water after sharing a video that was criticised by some as antisemitic.
Last year, he circulated a video of a Muslim man in a balaclava apparently preparing to throw a brick at a church - who then pulls off the balaclava and says he won't conform to far-right stereotypes of Muslims.
However, the activist goes on to claim that far-right groups have 'Zionist backers' - referencing those who believe in the idea of a Jewish state.
He made the universally recognised symbol for 'money' by rubbing his fingers together as he said the term - seemingly referencing antisemitic tropes that Jewish people have huge sums of money and seek to control the world.
Mr O'Brien later admitted that he had not watched the clip to the end and subsequently apologised.
'I referenced this clip on the show today while watching it live in the studio. I didn't watch it to the end. Obviously, the reference to 'Zionist backers' is obnoxious & anti-semitic. My apologies,' he wrote on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
Oxford controversial bridge scheme cost rises by £3.7m
A controversial bridge will cost an extra £3.7m to build because of delays caused by a recent judicial review, a local authority has Oxpens River Bridge, which would link Oxpens Meadow to Grandpont Nature Park in Oxford, was approved last year and was supposed to have been built by against the bridge launched a judicial review into the decision earlier this year, which was dismissed by the High Court on all five counts in bridge was initially expected to cost £10.3m, but the city council now estimates it will cost £14m. Oxford City Council said the increase in cost was due to the inflation of construction costs, caused by the delay from the judicial a report prepared ahead of a scrutiny committee meeting on Tuesday, the council said it was working with potential benefactors, including Homes England and the University of Oxford, to bridge the funding gaps. Construction work on the bridge is set to begin in early 2026, with a view to be completed by February Friends of Grandpont Nature Park, who brought the judicial review, said it "hopes to save [the taxpayer] millions by scrapping the project altogether".The group has submitted an appeal against the high court decision, and is waiting to hear whether it can city council previously said the bridge would provide a walking route between Osney Mead and Oxpens - with both areas set for regeneration with new homes and for the bridge currently consists of £8.8m from the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal, and £1.5m from the Housing and Infrastructure Fund from Homes opposed to the development argue locals would lose a cherished nature park, emphasising that there is already a bridge a short distance away that could be fixed instead. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Kent marching band appeals to King to save them from eviction
Britain's last remaining St John Ambulance marching band has sent a letter to King Charles appealing for his help to save them from musicians have been in their current property in Halfway, on the Isle of Sheppey, for 50 John Ambulance said it was putting the premises up for sale following a "thorough review of the condition, running costs, maintenance requirements, and location of the building, confirming it was no longer suitable for our service needs".Bandmaster Dean Faulkner said as the King had been royal patron of the charity since 2024, the band had "nothing to lose" by sending him the letter. "It is appalling they want to sell the premises, considering that we have been part of this community for many years," Mr Faulkner 59-year-old said the land at Queenborough Road had been gifted by Lord Harris in 1974 and the property built with the support of community Faulkner, who has been a member of St John Ambulance for 48 years, said the charity had now given them until 23 September to move out - an extension from the previous notice of 31 said the band had also submitted an application to Swale Borough Council proposing to buy the building as a community asset. "We are so grateful for the community's support in our fight to save the premises," Mr Faulkner added. 'Simply not realistic' Kevin McKenna, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, wrote a letter to the chief executive of St John Ambulance asking them to pause the sale process and launch a public consultation. He wrote: "This decision seems to reflect a growing and troubling pattern. "Essential services are increasingly being centralised, often to the detriment of communities that are both geographically isolated and economically disadvantaged such as Sheppey."Mr McKenna added travelling off the island was "simply not realistic", especially for older members and those with John Ambulance has offered a new property to the band 25 miles (40km) away in Rochester.A spokesperson for the charity said: "We are engaging with local volunteers and band members to secure a suitable spot-hire meeting place from several promising leads in Sheppey while we seek more permanent premises in the region." They added this approach helped ensure "effective management of our resources".
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.
