Sam

Hi John. I think you weaken your argument by citing an anonymous Twitter troll who regularly calls people who lean left “c**nts” as your counter-evidence. As a BBC journalist, you should know there is credible evidence for the disproportionate attention argument, as well as evidence of insufficient scrutiny and, at times, favourable framing. A Cardiff University-led study found Reform appeared in 25.1% of BBC News at Ten bulletins. More concerningly, when Reform made substantive claims that could be tested, only around four in ten received rigorous scrutiny. That matters. The BBC has given Reform an enormous platform, repeatedly amplifying its claims to millions of people without anything approaching consistent, rigorous scrutiny. When those claims are misleading or demonstrably questionable, simply broadcasting them and moving on risks turning journalism into a transmission mechanism for misinformation. John, you’re a highly experienced and respected journalist. I find it difficult to believe that, at some level, you’re not aware that there is a legitimate and evidence-based concern here.

Whilst your here, @EssexPR, care to comment on some of the men you've praised, supported and hung about with? Donald Trump - found liable of rape by a jury, has enjoyed your support since. Talks about women in the most abhorrent manner. Connor McGregor - found liable by a Dublin High Court jury of raping his wife. You sent him kudos. James English - already had a conviction for assaulting a woman and was facing a further conviction for beating his pregnant partner when you were sending him multiple positive messages on X and went on his podcast, sharing selfies with him. Andrew Tate - had already been charged with rape, human trafficking and offences against children in Romania, was facing 59 similar charges in the UK. Had published videos where he demonstrated the best techniques to beat a woman. You stated on X that only a "moron" would prevent kids from viewing his content and have never said a public word against him. So Adam, let's test if you actually care about women and girls, or if you're just a grifter who uses their suffering for ragebait. Do you condemn each and every one of these scumbags? Will you speak out against them with the same passion and frequency as you would if they happened to be a migrant? Or are you just a fraud?

Adam has openly supported or defended Donald Trump, found liable by a US jury for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll; Andrew Tate, who has posted material about beating and controlling women and now faces 59 UK charges including rape and sexual assault; Tommy Robinson, made subject to a five-year stalking protection order for harassing a female journalist; Conor McGregor, who a civil jury found liable for sexually assaulting a woman; and James English, convicted of sustained domestic abuse against his partner. This is just a tiny selection of the men in Adam’s movement who have abused or raped women. And yet I cannot recall him speaking out against any of them. Instead, he spends every day telling the country that immigrants are a danger to British women. If your concern for women’s safety disappears when the abusers are part of your own movement, then women’s safety was never really the point.

It's interesting in the comments that no one wants to talk about the multiple high profile men who Adam openly supports who have a track record of violence against women, they just want to quibble on whether the data I cited might be a few years old. The reality is, Adam has zero interests in protecting women, he has proven that by the men he supports on this platform. He uses violence against women to broaden his platform and make money. If someone with Adam's following truly wants to protect women, he should be fighting every day against violent rhetoric against women, against male influencers who abuse women and have a huge influence on young men in Britain. But he won't say a word about that because it doesn't suit his narrative and he aligns politically and socially with some of the biggest women and girl abusing scumbugs in public life. Andrew Tate shared videos teaching young British guys the best way to beat a woman, amongst numerous other disgusting content. The only times Adam has talked about Tate is when he's defended him and stated that young men should be able to access their content. He has never once warned his young followers against the violence against women Tate advocates. Trump said that famous men can do what they want to women, including graphic statements, along with being found liable for sexual assault by a jury. Adam spent years supporting Trump, never once speaking out for his victims or against his rhetoric. Brooks openly praised Connor McGregor despite knowing there was an active Irish High Court case against McGregor for rape, of which a jury found him liable. He has no scruples or morals on this subject. He has no interest in protecting women.

You’ve confused an ethical problem with a technological one. Child labour in mining is abhorrent, but it isn’t an argument against solar any more than child labour in cocoa production is an argument against chocolate. The relevant comparison is whether solar, over its lifetime, is cleaner than fossil fuels. Every credible life-cycle analysis says it is. The solution is ethical mining and better recycling, not more coal.

Details have emerged from the US alleging that WhatsApp messages were found on Andrew Tates' phone to one of his accusers threatening them and saying: "I might r*pe you again" As Tate was being arrested, he attempted to hand his phone to one of his security guards, but it fell on the floor and was picked up by a marshall. For those who continue to defend this guy, yes, we all believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty; these messages may not be a conviction, but surely you can see what an utter lowlife this guy is?

Andrew Tate will likely go down as the dumbest criminal in history. He created 100s of hours of videos explaining exactly how he committed his crimes, and even created online courses teaching others the process. He predicted on multiple occasions he would be arrested for his crimes to his millions of followers. He made videos daring the authorities to arrest him for his crimes. He got arrested for his crimes.

Should we be addressing your rhetoric, @EssexPR? You are literally linking rhetoric to the murder of Widdecombe here - does this mean your recent hateful rhetoric is specifically designed to incite violence against Starmer and Khan?

You seem to be spending an awful lot of time on my timeline, Adam. Do you think it's appropriate in the week a politician has been murdered for you to stir up targeted political hate and division? Is this you? Should we address the rhetoric you are spreading about Starmer and Khan?

You despise these men based on your own lies, Adam. Let's actually dig into what Khan said, rather than your fabricated version of events: “My understanding from speaking to the police… is – and I choose my words carefully for the reasons she will understand – there are no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs that she is concerned about in London. That is not to say it could not have happened… but the MPS has been quite proactive in trying to see if there are any issues in relation to the stuff reported in other parts of the country.” “The issue in London is there are no reported cases or indication of those sorts of grooming gangs… We do have a concern in relation to county lines and the exploitation of young people… In short… no reported cases but no complacency from the Metropolitan Police Service either.” Neither of these statements were ever proven to be wrong or a lie. This is why people object so strongly to you, Adam - because you are a liar, and you spread hate and misinformation because it's personally profitable to you. You are an amoral grifter who feeds off creating hate. Shame on you and shame on @GBNEWS for giving you a platform, even if it is at 3am in morning when most sane people are thankfully asleep.

Adam, I work in tech, you're a fascist barman. I know how algorithms work and it is technically impossible that 14% of people who the algo feed your content to are liking it when the site average, even for actually popular people, is 0.5-1%. It becomes even more impossible when you only have 235 comments from nearly 9000 likes, most of which are telling you what a d*ck you are. I noticed this change on your account overnight in the last week or so. If you're not the one feeding bots to your account, then someone else is. It's well known that far right accounts including many linked to Reform and Restore have been artificially boosted over the last year to give the false impression your hateful rhetoric has more support than it actually does. Occam’s razor.