Due Accuracy. Due Impartiality. Due Intervention.
On Sunday 10 May 2026, on Sky News’ flagship Sunday current-affairs slot, the presenter put to Reform UK’s Deputy Leader that Nigel Farage’s £5m gift from Christopher Harborne “didn’t have to” be declared, and used that line to close down the question. Two regulators are actively investigating whether the rule was breached.
This campaign files a formal Ofcom Section 5 complaint against Sky News in one click, anchored to Rules 5.1, 5.7, 5.12 and 5.2 of the Broadcasting Code. Personalised per submission, sent directly to Ofcom via the broadcaster-complaints endpoint.
Read the full analysis: The broadcast, the Code provisions, the public-interest test, and the contemporaneous Sky News reporting that established the broadcaster knew the rule.
Support us. Each Ofcom-track submission costs us money to deliver. Help us keep the Broadcasting Code under load.
DonateFile your Ofcom Section 5 complaint, in one click
Enter your details below. Ofcom requires a UK postcode on every broadcast complaint, so we collect that too. On submit, we personalise the complaint body in your voice, build the official Ofcom complaint object (broadcaster: Sky News, programme: Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, broadcast date: 10 May 2026), and file it for you. The complaint is anchored to Section 5 of the Broadcasting Code: Rule 5.1 (due accuracy in news), Rule 5.7 (facts must not be misrepresented), Rule 5.12 (due impartiality on matters of major political controversy) and Rule 5.2 (correction of significant mistakes).
Every submission is unique. Ofcom weighs the specificity and quality of complaints over volume, so each body is personalised in the complainant’s voice before it is submitted.
About this campaign
On Sunday 10 May 2026, on Sky News’ flagship Sunday current-affairs programme Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips (Sky News YouTube ID zpzOVLgquTk), the presenter put questions to Richard Tice MP, Deputy Leader of Reform UK, about the £5 million personal gift Nigel Farage MP received from Christopher Harborne in 2024. Within that interview, on the question of whether the gift had to be declared, the presenter said in substance: ‘I also know he didn’t have to declare it so you don’t have to tell me that.’ The line both asserted a contested factual conclusion as settled and used that conclusion to close down the question. Watch the broadcast on Sky News’ YouTube channel.
By the morning of the broadcast, two investigations were in progress or imminent on that exact question. The Conservative Party had referred Mr Farage to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Electoral Commission had confirmed it was assessing whether to open a formal investigation. The House of Commons Guide to the Rules expressly requires registration where there is doubt that a benefit is registrable.
Sky News’ own senior political editor, Beth Rigby, read the relevant rule into a Sky News interview with Mr Farage earlier the same week, and tested the recipient’s account against it. The broadcaster was in a position to know the rule. The Sunday morning programme did not reflect that on air. The asymmetry inside the same week, on the same channel, on the same factual question, is the campaign’s strongest evidentiary point: it rules out a ‘we couldn’t have known’ defence.
The Ofcom Guidance Notes to Section 5 of the Broadcasting Code are explicit that where a matter is of particular public interest, the threshold for due accuracy is correspondingly higher, not lower. A £5 million personal gift from the party’s largest political donor (more than £20 million given across cycles, including a record £9 million in August 2025), to the leader of the polling-leading opposition party, under two active regulatory investigations, is plainly such a matter.
This is not a campaign against the presenter, not a campaign against Sky News in general, and not a campaign against Reform. It is a campaign about due accuracy on a specific question of fact on a specific broadcast. The principle is symmetrical: we would file the same complaint if the same line were said in favour of any other political leader under the same circumstances. We do not claim Mr Farage has committed an offence; two regulators are looking at the rule, and the rule is the rule.