Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology
Mr Farage labelled Technology Secretary Mr Kyle's remarks as 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief', and urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed.
We talked to mums about the Online Safety Act 👇 pic.twitter.com/rt6xJPWjVr
— Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) July 25, 2025
Former Reform chair Zia Yusuf said on Monday that the party would repeal the legislation if they got into Government.
'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws,' Mr Kyle told Sky News.
'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.
'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.'
Peter Kyle's comments on @SkyNews are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 29, 2025
Responding to Mr Kyle on a live stream on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation?
'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.'
He also reiterated his demand for an apology and added: 'We're not going to get one. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is to sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. That's what I'm going to do today. I think it makes sense. I'm deeply worried about the implications for free speech.'
Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide.
Mr Yusuf has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-Government speech'.
After being asked by Mr Farage to apologise on social media, Mr Kyle doubled down on his comments, claiming that wanting to 'overturn' the Act puts somebody 'on the side of predators'.
If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. https://t.co/oVArgFvpcW
— Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025
Mr Yusuf has claimed that Mr Kyle's remarks showed 'how deeply unserious' the Government was about child safety, adding: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.'
He told Sky News that the comments are 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena that I can remember. And that's quite a high bar, frankly.'
Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone.
'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.'
The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
20 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions
After Reform promised to repeal the Online Safety Act, it didn't take long for Labour to defend internet censorship. 'And get rid of child protections online? Madness,' Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted. 'Why would anyone want to grant strangers and paedophiles unfettered online access to children?' asked Mike Tapp. Science Minister Peter Kyle went one step further, declaring that anyone opposing the Online Safety Act – including Reform leader Nigel Farage – is 'on the side of Jimmy Savile'. Labour's latest attack ad reads: 'Farage's Reform party would scrap laws keeping children safe online'. The actions of government ministers over the past few days provide a masterclass in left-wing institution shrine-making. Yes, it might seem absurd that the government is treating a week-old policy like a sacred cow, the abolition of which is completely unimaginable. But this is a strategy ripped out of the progressive playbook. The same approach has been taken to the Human Rights Act, Ofcom, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Supreme Court. We live in a world of Blairite institutions treated as ancient pillars of society. On Sky News, Kyle added that Farage was 'on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults can get in touch via messaging apps with children'. How dare Farage try to turn back the tide of progress like this, returning the UK to the dystopian hellscape of… last week? If Labour are to be believed, the internet before 25 July 2025 – when the act's child safety duties came into force – was a dangerous and terrifying place in which children were constantly at risk of predation. It's completely safe now, though. The fact that the greatest safeguarding scandal of the 21st century – the mass grooming and rape of our children – happened mostly offline seems to have passed the government by. Here's how it works. Step one: diagnose a real problem and propose an institution or law that may do something in a roundabout way to address it. The Online Safety Act latched on to very real fears that children were accessing hardcore pornography and self-harm sites online. Martyn's Law, legislation seeking to improve protective security and organisational preparedness in event venues, responded to the horrors of the Manchester Arena terror attack in 2017. The Human Rights Act of 1998 emerged from a good-natured desire to 'bring rights home'. Nobody could ever object to the prohibition of slavery or torture. It all seemed very reasonable at the time. Step two: give your newly created solution wide-reaching powers that go far beyond the scope of the problem you sought to solve. Consult every 'stakeholder' on the books and add in amendments seeking to cover a whole host of new issues. Quickly, the Online Safety Act became an attempt to age-restrict most of the internet, including 'content relating to': sexual exploitation, illegal immigration and people smuggling, and fraud. Yes, 16-year-olds will soon have the right to vote – but not to watch some speeches in Parliament. Attempts to insulate venues from the threat posed by terrorism left small event organisers with hours of paperwork and online training in order to hold even tiny events unlikely ever to have been the target of an attack. The Human Rights Act became a vehicle for criminals to stay in the country. Finally, once your institution has spiralled completely out of control, object to any and all criticism on the grounds that the world we lived in before was a cruel and dangerous place. Never engage with the realities of the past. Robert Jenrick's campaign for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights and abolish the Human Rights Act was met with shock from campaigners. Those who support him are accused of trying to take away human rights – of trying to remove 'the fundamental universal rights we have as all human beings'. Ushering in a world where no one can have a free trial or a family life. Those on the left refuse to engage with the fact that, before 1998 when the act was introduced, Britain was clearly not an authoritarian state. Indeed, freedom of speech was undoubtedly better back then. The same case is made for the Supreme Court, which only came into existence in 2009, and the Equality Act of 2010. Before this, we are meant to believe that the ordinary person was suffering day to day at the hands of evil, woman-hating employers and parliamentary dictators. The same goes for the Office for Budget Responsibility – a creation of Cameron's 2010 government, and one which the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is determined to hand even more power to. Was the Treasury completely out of control before they weighed in with their forecasts? Is a 15-year-old institution that's overseen consistently rising government debt truly beyond reproach? Was the press really much worse before Ipso, the press regulator, was established in 2014? If anything, its existence has made it harder for the press to report on contentious topics, such as the gender debate. There was a world before the turn of the millennium. Britain is held together by the fundamentals of its democratic norms; by its truly ancient institutions: common law, democracy and parliamentary sovereignty have all done great things to protect the individual. The institutions and policies of the last decade have hindered, not helped, this project. Learn from the derangement of the conversation about the Online Safety Act. Don't fall for the progressive guidebook next time they get it out.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Data sovereignty must be more than a slogan
Nutanix is a Business Reporter client Why business leaders must build digital exit strategies before regulation or geopolitics forces their hand. Not long ago, cloud strategy was all about performance, price and scale. Today, something far more fundamental is at stake – control. In boardrooms across Europe, business and public sector leaders are asking the same question: how can we ensure our data stays within reach, and outside the grip of foreign companies and powers? This is the question at the heart of digital sovereignty, a concept that has shifted from technical jargon to strategic imperative in record time. For the UK, it is becoming a defining issue of the post-Brexit digital economy. For the rest of Europe, it is a response to growing fears that foreign control over digital infrastructure represents not just a business risk, but a national one. And for all of us, it raises a critical truth. If we cannot walk away from our digital providers, we don't really own our data. We're only renting it and hoping the landlord stays friendly. The legal reality behind the cloud The urgency behind digital sovereignty isn't ideological. It's legal. Businesses may believe that hosting their data in a local or regional data centre provides protection, but legal jurisdiction often overrides geography. Take the United States CLOUD Act. This legislation compels US-based technology companies to provide access to data, no matter where that data is physically stored, if requested by US law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Crucially, it can also prohibit providers from disclosing those requests to customers. That creates a chilling scenario for European organisations. A UK business using a US-owned cloud provider might find its data accessed by US authorities without ever being notified. And if services are suspended, whether due to sanctions, litigation or political pressure, there may be no immediate recourse. This isn't theoretical. It's happening. One high-profile incident this spring saw Microsoft temporarily restrict access to services for the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, reportedly in response to US sanctions. Whether politically motivated or not, it proved a point: legal control trumps marketing claims, and companies are more exposed than they realise. Sovereignty demands mobility Digital sovereignty is not about avoiding the cloud. It's about being able to move if you need to. And that's where many businesses are still unprepared. Over the past decade, enterprises have become deeply dependent on hyperscale cloud platforms. That's not a criticism as those platforms offer incredible agility and innovation. But it also means many organisations lack a plan B. They have no practical, tested way to exit a provider if trust breaks down, prices spike or the geopolitical climate shifts. In fact, we increasingly see governments stepping in. In Norway, regulators have begun requiring public institutions to develop exit strategies for their cloud services. In Germany and Switzerland, digital infrastructure investment is being weighed not only on technical merit but on the legal independence of the provider. The UK, too, is moving. A bill currently under discussion would require stress-testing of organisational data strategies. This reflects a growing recognition that resilience must include the ability to change providers, quickly and cleanly, without downtime or data loss. What boards need to ask today Is this really an IT problem, or is it a C-suite issue that demands board-level attention? Senior leaders must now assess their organisation's digital dependencies as carefully as their financial exposure. Can you move your workloads if you need to? Do you have contracts that support rapid migration? Have you mapped where your data resides and who has legal access? Do you have the internal capabilities to operate hybrid or multicloud environments? Visibility remains a major challenge. According to the 2023 Nutanix Enterprise Cloud Index, only 13 per cent of public sector IT leaders say they completely understand where their data is located and under which jurisdiction it falls. That lack of clarity introduces unacceptable risk in a landscape where legal access matters as much as physical access. These are not questions to leave for later. In a crisis, it's already too late to design a safe exit. Sovereignty is not something that can be switched on. Instead, it must be built into the architecture of your business. The opportunity in resilience The good news is that a better approach is emerging. Modern, cloud-native platforms are enabling businesses to operate across multiple providers without lock-in. Hybrid multicloud infrastructure makes it possible to move data and applications across environments, without sacrificing performance or compliance. This is more than a future vision: it is already the direction of travel. To this point, 84 per cent of public sector organisations globally now view hybrid multicloud as their ideal operating model. The appeal is clear: the ability to combine flexibility, resilience and compliance within a single architecture. At Nutanix, we work with customers across Europe who are building exactly this kind of resilience. Whether in financial services, public sector or healthcare, these organisations recognise that sovereignty is not about cutting ties with the global cloud ecosystem. It is about making sure those ties are balanced, reversible and governed by clear terms. One such example is the UK's Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), which has embraced a modern cloud strategy to ensure operational continuity and flexibility at national scale. As one of the country's largest public service departments, DWP's ability to manage critical infrastructure with both agility and control speaks to the strategic importance of sovereign-ready digital platforms. We are also seeing growing momentum from policymakers, regulators and industry leaders who want to ensure European organisations can retain digital self-determination without cutting themselves off from innovation. This is the real goal. Not isolation, but independence. Now is the time to act In times of stability, it's easy to overlook hidden dependencies. But we are not in a stable time. From economic volatility to political fragmentation, the risks of inaction are growing. Sovereignty cannot be retrofitted. It must be planned for, budgeted for and tested, just like any other pillar of enterprise risk management. That process starts with visibility, continues with strategy and succeeds only with executive support. European business leaders, especially in critical sectors such as government, finance and healthcare, now face a choice. Treat data sovereignty as a compliance box to tick or as a competitive differentiator. This is no longer a niche concern, as 72 per cent of public sector decision-makers now say their top priority for cloud deployment is the ability to move workloads freely across environments. Because in the digital age, true sovereignty is not just about where your data lives. It's about whether you can take it with you. For more information, visit
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Man in court charged with threatening to kill Nigel Farage in TikTok post
An Afghan migrant charged with threatening to kill Nigel Farage in a TikTok post has appeared in court. Fayaz Khan, 26, allegedly made the threats against the Reform UK leader and other users of the social media platform between October 12 and 15 last year. He posted the alleged threat during his journey from Afghanistan to the UK, Westminster Magistrates' Court previously heard. Khan is also charged with sending a grossly offensive TikTok video between the same dates. Prosecutor Maham Malik told the court the defendant had previously pleaded not guilty to one count of making threats to kill at Southwark Crown Court on July 24. A provisional trial for the charge has been fixed at Southwark Crown Court for October 7. Khan, who appeared in the dock wearing a grey tracksuit, spoke only to confirm his identity without an interpreter and plead not guilty to the second new charge of sending a grossly offensive TikTok video between October 12 and 15, 2024 during a brief hearing on Wednesday. The defendant, of no fixed address, was remanded in custody to next appear at Southwark Crown Court for a further hearing on August 27.
