The Spectator opinion piece, by Andrew Gilligan, on UK Politics, 7 July 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

The Green party councillor being investigated by the GMC

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

A newly-elected Green councillor who is also an NHS GP is being investigated by the General Medical Council after The Spectator revealed that she repeatedly attacked ‘Zios’ and called on people to ‘burn Zionism to the ground.’ Rebecca Jones, a doctor at the Hilly Fields practice in Lewisham, and councillor for the nearby Blackheath ward, announced on her Facebook page that the medical regulator has ‘opened an investigation into my fitness to practice.

It’s one of the worst bits of professional news a doctor can receive.’ The GMC can suspend or prohibit a doctor from practice. Jones remains defiant, however, claiming that it is simply an attempt to ‘censor and silence doctors who speak out against Israel’s genocidal regime… We must fight, if only for our little corner of justice.’ Jones described our accurate reporting as a ‘smear’ and said she had been targeted because she was standing for the Green party and ‘oppose[s] Zionism’.

Let’s remind Dr Jones of what she said on her social media channels. She posts on Facebook and Instagram as ‘The Vegan Doctor,’ complete with a personal logo of her in a stethoscope and, er, a balaclava. She has a separate personal account, Rebecca Ellen Jones. The offending posts were done from the Vegan Doctor accounts. As well as the demand to ‘burn Zionism,’ Jones said: ‘Zios seem to use doublethink and doublespeak a lot… I’m still amazed by the way they, the media and the colonialists try to make us believe that anti-zionism [is]… extreme.’

The Bob Vylan chant calling for death to the IDF was ‘amazing.’ She posted someone reading the purported last will and testament of Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of the October 7 attacks, a reading she described as ‘beautiful.’ There are multiple other slighting references to ‘Zios.’ Most popular All these posts have been removed, so presumably there are some things which even renowned fighters for justice now realise are wrong. But others with a direct bearing on Jones’s work as a medic remain available to this day.

Last year, she posted that though doctors are ‘discouraged from talking about politics, religion and morals with patients,’ they in fact have a ‘duty to speak up for and to their patients,’ some of the extreme views about Zionism, killing and Israel above. She added that ‘maybe I’ll wait until after the CQC [Care Quality Commission] inspection [of her GP practice] is over, though.’

In the same post, Jones quoted the ‘amazing anarchist’ Pyotr Kropotkin: ‘You doctors… come with your scalpel and dissect for us, with an unerring hand, this society of ours, hastening to putrefaction. Tell us what a rational existence should and might be. Insist, as true surgeons, that a gangrenous limb must be amputated when it may poison the whole body.’ In another ‘Vegan Doctor’ post, now deleted, she said : ‘I can’t be a safe space for anyone excusing Israel’s actions.

I’ll never be unsafe for/ towards anyone, but I can’t hold space for you if you think that Zionism and the resulting atrocities are ok.’ At least one of Jones’s campaigning pro-Palestinian videos appears to have been shot in a consulting room or medical setting, which gives the impression that she was acting in a professional capacity.

GMC guidance says that ‘how you behave when using social media matters. Medical professionals, like everyone else, have rights to freedom of belief, privacy, and expression.’ But ‘you must not use social media to abuse, discriminate against, bully, harass or deliberately target any individual or group,’ presumably even including Zionists. More broadly , in everything they do, doctors must ‘make sure their conduct justifies patients’ trust in them and the public’s trust in the profession.’

Doctors, ‘must also not express their personal beliefs, whether political or otherwise, to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or could reasonably cause them distress’ and ‘must not discriminate against [patients] or let their personal views affect their relationship with them or the treatment they provide or arrange.’ Jones, a Green candidate in Lewisham when we exposed the posts, was never suspended by the party or had the Green ticket removed.

Indeed, the official London Green party account posted a supportive message (‘hope you are OK!’) on her Instagram post about our reporting. She was subsequently elected a councillor. She is at least the third Green candidate exposed by The Spectator to face regulatory or police action. Two candidates in Lambeth, one of whom was also elected, are under criminal investigation for stirring up racial hatred. The Green party was approached for comment.

Read the original article on spectator.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The Spectator reports a GMC investigation into Green councillor and GP Rebecca Jones, then adds insinuation the article does not back. It follows her post about Zionism with a remark that most British Jews are Zionists and asks what this means for her patients, though it quotes her saying she will never be unsafe towards anyone. It also guesses, with 'presumably', that she pushes her views on patients, and it reports no complaint or incident to support that.

NewsCord staff selected this article for review and pointed the model at passages to examine. Every finding quotes the article.

Opinion piece: read for false claims of fact and for fairness to the people it names, not for its opinions.

  1. Smears a named person

    Minor

    “Most British Jews, of course, are Zionists and/or supporters of Israel.”

    Why this matters
    Placed straight after Jones's post about Zionism, the line 'Most British Jews, of course, are Zionists' turns her political statement into a statement about Jews.
    The impression it gives
    That Jones's refusal to 'hold space' for people who excuse Israel's actions is really a stance against Jewish patients.
    The context
    The post the article quotes says the opposite about how she treats people: 'I'll never be unsafe for/ towards anyone'. Nothing in the article shows Jones saying anything about Jews or treating any Jewish patient differently.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“I’ll never be unsafe for/ towards anyone”

    Show it in the article

    “What, if anything, does this mean for a ‘Zionist’ or Israel-supporting patient who needs treatment from Dr Jones?”

    Why this matters
    The rhetorical question plants the idea that patients face a risk from Jones without stating it, so the charge is made without being argued.
    The impression it gives
    That Jones may refuse or mistreat Jewish or Israel-supporting patients.
    The context
    The article offers no patient, no complaint and no incident. Its only evidence about her conduct towards patients is her own statement that she will never be unsafe towards anyone.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “complaint”.
    • Elsewhere in the article“I’ll never be unsafe for/ towards anyone”

    Show it in the article

  2. Smears a named person

    Minor

    “presumably by giving them”

    Why this matters
    The word 'presumably' attaches the outlet's guess to her post: that she pushes her political views on her patients.
    The impression it gives
    That Jones has been lecturing patients about Zionism and Israel in her surgery.
    The context
    The article quotes only a general post about a doctor's duty to speak up for patients. It reports no patient, no complaint and no consultation in which she discussed politics.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “complaint”.

    Show it in the article

    “This appears to show she was aware that she risked breaching professional standards.”

    Why this matters
    The sentence reads a throwaway remark about the CQC inspection as an admission of misconduct.
    The impression it gives
    That Jones knowingly planned to break professional rules and hide it from inspectors.
    The context
    The remark the article quotes is 'maybe I'll wait until after the CQC inspection is over, though'. It shows no breach, and the article reports no finding against her practice.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“maybe I’ll wait until after the CQC”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Spectator

  1. 26 AugMiddle East Eye seems to get stupider and stupider6.0
  2. 25 AugFarah Ahmed: study engineering ‘to produce weaponry for Jihad’3.0
  3. 18 AugCambridge University-linked project erases Israel6.0
  4. 15 AugWhy is Cambridge platforming Islamic creationism?3.0
  5. 11 AugMeet Farah Ahmed, Jason Arday’s colleague3.0

Everything we scored from The Spectator