Former GB News presenter sues channel after being taken off air for calling Suella Braverman 'racist'
An ex-presenter on GB News who was taken off air after labelling Suella Braverman as a 'racist' is now suing the channel for unfair dismissal.
Albie Amankona, a 31-year-old Conservative activist and broadcaster, has launched a crowdfunding appeal as he says he was racially harassed and victimised.
He previously co-hosted GB News's The Saturday Five debate show - on which he described former Home Secretary Ms Braverman in July last year as 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'.
GB News apologised at the time to Ms Braverman, describing his remarks as having 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence' - and said the Fareham and Waterlooville MP was 'understandably upset'.
Mr Amankona, co-founder of the group Conservatives Against Racism for Equality, was taken off air and his departure from GB News was confirmed last August.
He is now taking legal action, backed by barrister Jolyon Maugham's Good Law Project which has previously brought challenges against Brexit and the LGB Alliance.
GB News has branded Mr Amankona's case 'misconceived' and 'without merit'.
This is the latest in a series of controversies for the right-wing broadcaster which has been embroiled in investigations by media regulator Ofcom.
The fundraising appeal for Mr Amankona, launched by the Good Law Project, has so far raised just over £1,700, with a stated target of £20,000.
The tribunal claims against GB News include for race discrimination, belief discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, unequal pay and unfair dismissal - all denied by the channel.
Mr Amankona is also said to have made a verbal complaint with a senior manager about allegedly racist behaviour by two GB News workmates last June and he claims that no immediate action was to be taken.
He said in a statement today: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values.
'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.'
Mr Amankona had presented his GB News programme since March 2023 until his final appearance on July 20 last year in which he discussed Ms Braverman.
He told viewers: 'I believe she is actually racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman.
'People like that should not be in the Conservative Party. She said British Pakistani men had a problem with grooming.
'She basically said that child grooming was a problem with the British Pakistani community.
'That is a racist comment and many Pakistani people in this country thought it was a racist comment and I agree with them.'
His co-presenter Darren Grimes, who has since left the broadcaster and is now Reform UK's deputy leader of Durham County Council, intervened on-air with comments including: 'We absolutely have to strongly deny that Suella Braverman is a racist.'
Mr Grimes also told Mr Amankona, 'That is your opinion', 'You cannot sit on this show and call someone a racist' and 'We are not getting into this'.
The new fundraising page says donations will go towards the costs of Mr Amankona's barristers in his employment tribunal case, with 10 per cent allocated to the 'general running costs of Good Law Project'.
The appeal says: 'Albie's claim against GB News is that he was racially harassed, paid less than white colleagues, and when he accused Suella Braverman of being "a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman", was discriminated against, unfairly dismissed and victimised.
'GB News' hypocrisy is unsurprising. Its talk of free speech is just window dressing for its attacks on already marginalised groups.
'GB News needs to understand that they are subject to the laws on protecting employees from bigotry and belief discrimination.
'But holding GB News to account will be expensive. That's why Good Law Project is supporting Albie with the legal costs of bringing his employment tribunal proceedings.'
GB News sources have been quoted as saying he was given notice two days before his on-air comments about Ms Braverman, along with other contributors.
In a statement, GB News said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended.
'As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.'
Right-wing broadcaster GB News has been involved in a number of disputes with media regulator Ofcom.
It was last year handed a £100,000 fine for breaching impartiality rules in a programme featuring Rishi Sunak.
That followed an appearance by the-then Prime Minister on a February 12 2024 programme called People's Forum: The Prime Minister, where he was asked questions by a studio audience.
A probe by Ofcom found that 'an appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints was not presented and given due weight'.
GB News is challenging the regulator's ruling - and in February this year won a High Court battle against Ofcom after a ruling the channel breached impartiality rules in a show presented by former Conservative Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.
A judge ruled initial decisions which were made in May and June 2023 were unlawful.
Also in 2023, GB News received 7,300 complaints and launched an internal inquiry after former host Laurence Fox made a series of remarks about a female journalist.
The actor-turned-activist was criticised for a sexist rant about political correspondent Ava Evans, which included him asking: 'Who would want to sh*g that?'
Fox said he was angry with Ms Evans over comments she made on a BBC debate around male suicide and alleged she had a 'dislike of men in general', but later apologised for 'demeaning her'.
Addressing the situation in a video posted to X, he said: 'If I was going to be sensible and I could replay it, I would say: "Any self-respecting man in 2023 would probably be well advised to avoid a woman who possessed that worldview because she would probably cause him nothing but harm".
'But what I did say was, you know, "I wouldn't s**g that', and all that sort of stuff, which is not right. It's demeaning to her, to Ava, so I'm sorry for demeaning you in that way.
'However angry I am with you still for doing that, and it demeans me because it's not representative of who I am.'
GB News suspended Fox from the channel in response to his comments and stated the following month that his contract had been terminated.
Ofcom ruled in March last year that Fox had breached broadcasting rules with commends described as 'misogynistic' as well as 'degrading and demeaning both to [Ms Evans] and women' generally '.
Ofcom has also in March this year scrapped 11 probes or rulings into alleged breaches of impartiality rules when it comes to politicians announcing news stories, the majority of them relating to GB News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
From the archive: ‘A nursery of the Commons': how the Oxford Union created today's ruling political class
We are raiding the Guardian long read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors. This week, from 2022: at the Oxford university debating society in the 80s, a generation of aspiring politicians honed the art of winning using jokes, rather than facts By Simon Kuper. Read by Andrew McGregor
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Nearly 100,000 adults in England denied state-funded social care due to cuts
Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied government-funded social care because of a decade's worth of spending cuts, a Guardian analysis has revealed, as ministers come under mounting pressure to increase funding for the sector. The analysis, which is based on a study by the Institute for Government (IfG), shows the number of people in England receiving subsidised care has fallen far more quickly than the country's disability rate. The figures highlight how a range of government cuts have put so much pressure on the English social care service that it is leaving tens of thousands of people without the access to long-term care that they would have received 15 years ago. Stuart Hoddinott, the associate director of the IfG, said: 'Financial pressure means local authorities with high levels of demand are forced to ration services to people who would receive care elsewhere. 'That injustice is compounded when caring responsibilities fall to friends and family, many of whom leave the workforce or reduce working hours to care for loved ones. The government should ensure that funding for local government reflects the need for services and that it doesn't pass the costs of care on to unpaid relatives.' The social care sector has faced a financial squeeze since 2010 thanks to cuts to local government budgets. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that councils' core budgets are 18% lower per person in real terms than they were in 2010, with many of the cuts feeding through to social care. With less money to pay staff, the sector has faced an employment crisis, which it has partly filled by hiring workers from abroad, many of whom have been scammed or abused in the process. Experts say local authorities have rationed care by judging fewer people as needing it than they used to and putting more people on short-term care plans rather than long-term ones. Meanwhile the Westminster government has also restricted access to government-funded care by freezing the financial threshold at which people qualify for state support since 2010. The Labour government continued that practice earlier this year when it announced the rules for 2025-26. The net effect of these changes have been to restrict the number of people receiving long-term care, even as the population gets older. The IfG's report shows the proportion of the adult population receiving long-term social care has dropped from 2.3% in 2003-04 to 1.4% now, an estimated decrease of more than 250,000 people. This decline has happened almost entirely in people aged 65 and over. The report shows that 8.2% of older adults received long-term care in 2003-04 compared with 3.6% in 2023-24. The Guardian has used the IfG's figures to compare the number of people receiving long-term social care with the number of people living with disabilities, which experts say is a good proxy for need. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The analysis shows that had access to social care continued rising in line with disability rates, more than 98,000 more people would be on government-funded care plans now than actually are. Mark Franks, a director at the Nuffield Foundation, which also contributed to the report, said: 'The social care system is subject to big variations in quality and a patchwork of strained funding arrangements. These lead to both rationing of care and big variations in quality and availability determined by where people live rather than greatest need.' Part of the problem has been fuelled by perceived unfairnesses in the formula for allocating central government money to local authorities, which did not take account of factors like deprivation. The government signalled its intention to change that on Friday, launching a consultation into a new funding formula that would mean less money going to wealthier councils in the south-east and more to deprived and rural areas. But ministers are also under pressure to mitigate the effect of the government's decision to increase both the minimum wage and national insurance contributions for employers. The Nuffield Trust has estimated the two decisions will cost independent social care employers nearly £3bn in 2025-26, with the government now looking to find extra money to make up the shortfall. The IfG report says: 'Rationing care is not cost free. The burden of reduced access to care can often fall on friends and family – predominantly poorer people and women – who step in to provide unpaid care. 'This is both unfair, and indirectly expensive for the government, as these people are less likely to be able to work full-time (or at all). Increasing access to care can therefore support the government's goal of improving workforce participation.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Class no longer main dividing line in UK politics, survey shows
Age and education have displaced class as the main demographic dividing line in British politics, according to a leading study on trends in public views. The British Social Attitudes survey, which has run annually since 1983, found that traditional class-based support for parties had diminished. 'The underpinnings of the system have disappeared, have been eroded. So class no longer equals vote. We now have multidimensional politics,' said Prof Sir John Curtice, a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and a co-author of the report. 'Trust in government, trust in politicians, is at an all-time low. So you can see all these things going on is creating an environment that means it looks more difficult for the Conservatives and Labour to hang on.' The analysis found that in the 2024 general election, Labour did not reconnect with its traditional base of working-class voters, whose support dropped substantially in 2019. Among those in semi-routine and routine occupations, 30% voted Labour, compared with 42% of people in professional and managerial jobs. 'London is now the most pro-Labour part of the country and actually the core Labour voter is a young, often first-generation, middle-class professional living in London,' Curtice said. The survey found that age and education were more often determining factors in voting intention. It said only 6% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted Conservative, compared with 36% of those aged 65 and over. Across age groups, just 5% of graduates voted for Reform UK, it found, compared with 25% of those with qualifications less than an A-level. 'Brexit speeded up a process which is that our politics are no longer simply about left versus right,' Curtice said. 'We now have a second dimension, which has always been there to a degree but which now matters far, far more. And that is basically culture wars, it's social liberals versus conservatives, it's libertarians versus authoritarians.' The survey found record levels of support for electoral reform. For the first time, a majority of supporters of all parties favour electoral reform – 55% of Labour supporters, 52% of Conservatives and 56% of Liberal Democrats, as well as 90% of Greens and 78% of Reform voters. In total, a record 60% of survey respondents said there should be a change in the electoral system 'to allow smaller political parties to get a fairer share of MPs'. Curtice said: 'It does show how civil society, in the wake of what was the most disproportional outcome in British electoral history, has moved on.' Alex Scholes, the research director at NatCen, said the 'political landscape is poised for potential transformation'. He added: 'The 2024 election highlighted significant challenges to Britain's traditional two-party system and the result has yet to restore public trust and confidence.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The survey found plummeting levels of satisfaction with public services. A record 59% of people are now dissatisfied with the NHS, compared with 25% in 2019. Only 21% are satisfied, down from 60% in 2019. It also found that 53% are dissatisfied with the provision of social care, compared with 37% in 2019. A record 26% said they were struggling to live on their current income, up from 16% before the pandemic. The proportion who said they were living comfortably fell over the same period from 50% to a record low of 35%. Curtice said: 'People who say they're struggling on their income are less likely to be trusting politicians. Those who think the health service is not doing very well are less likely to be trusting politicians and governments. So these things are related. 'The risks that face this government and the opposition collectively were very, very clearly there in the election – you have to cast your eyes away from Westminster. The majority of 174 is a creature of the electoral system, it is not a reflection of what happened in terms of how people voted.'
