In December 2019 I warned that Britain was sliding towards a culture that licensed prejudice and exclusion. Five years on, that “permission to hate” has hardened. This is a reflection on what has happened since, how that permission lives on in politics and the media, and what defenders of an open, inclusive society can – and must – do to resist it.
2019 to now: What has changed and what has not
Readers of my original blog post (published on 24 December 2019) will recall that it warned against what I described as a “new permission to hate” sweeping parts of British society, marked by racist behaviour at football grounds, rising transphobia in media coverage, and antisemitism and Islamophobia tolerated in public life. That piece presaged developments that have since taken hold in more powerful forms.
In the years since, prejudice in sport and public discourse has not abated. Racially abusive behaviour at football venues reappears with distressing regularity and too often generates a cycle of outrage, token gestures, and inertia rather than real cultural change.
Media narratives have increasingly normalised hostility towards trans people, as has the debate about trans participation in sport, framing debates about rights and recognition less as discussions about human dignity and more as moral panics or threats to social order.
Antisemitism and Islamophobia have not disappeared either. Political rhetoric around immigration and national identity has at times overlapped with language that marginalises religious and ethnic minorities and Hamas’s attacks of 7 October 2023 in Israel and the subsequent abhorrent retaliation in Gaza have made things worse.
Politics and populism: Reform UK and the mainstreaming of fear
A stark example of the shifting political landscape has been the rise of Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage. Reform evolved from the Brexit Party of 2018–21 into a right-wing populist movement that now polls strongly across Britain. Nigel Farage has led this party since 2024, and its approach blends cultural grievance with hardline stances on issues such as immigration and law and order.
Reform UK’s electoral performance – including its strong vote share in the 2024 general election, the party’s continued gains in council seats, and its appearance at the top of the opinion polls making it a serious force in British politics – reflects how anxieties about cultural change, economic insecurity and identity have been channelled into support for a movement that thrives on simplistic, often divisive, messaging.
Reform’s ideology appears to me as right-wing populism and part of the broader hard right in British politics, in line with similar movements across Europe and MAGA in the United States of America, that leverage nostalgia for tradition, scepticism of elites, and fear of “others.”
The role of the Press: normalising hostility and avoiding accountability
The persistence of the permission to hate is not solely party political. It is amplified by parts of the British press whose editorial choices and headlines fuel division rather than understanding.
Media outlets in print and online such as the Mail, Express, Sun, The Times, and The Telegraph have all been criticised over the years for headlines and coverage that, at best, border on sensationalism and, at worst, promote prejudicial stereotypes. In recent years they have been joined by right wing comment platform GB News. I would argue that some columns and front pages repeatedly emphasise cultural grievance, stoke fear of migration and difference, or present complex social issues as battles between “real” Britons and supposed outsiders — a dynamic that can normalise prejudice rather than challenge it.
As citizens committed to inclusive society, part of our response must be demanding accountability from media outlets and their regulators. In the UK this means using established complaint mechanisms where coverage breaches ethical standards. Many national newspapers are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which enforces the Editors’ Code of Practice and accepts complaints about editorial material and journalist conduct. Information on how to make a complaint — including via IPSO’s online form and the requirement to show how the Code has been breached — can be found on the regulator’s website.
Different outlets and publishers may also maintain their own complaints procedures, and broadcast media fall under regulators such as Ofcom. The key is that structured, informed complaints can create pressure for more accurate, responsible reporting and help shift industry norms away from prejudice and towards inclusive representation.
Why silence is not neutral
One of the most dangerous cultural shifts since 2019 has been the normalisation of indifference. Prejudice is increasingly treated as background noise, as inevitable “robust debate” or peripheral to the “real” political agenda. This is a serious error.
Silence in the face of hate creates space. Prejudice fills that space quickly with familiar old tropes about immigrants, minorities, or people whose identities differ from the majority. When mainstream media outlets fail to challenge those tropes, they contribute — even inadvertently — to a climate in which prejudice is deemed acceptable or at least merely contentious.
What those who believe in an open society must do
If the permission to hate persists in politics and the media, then resistance to it must be active and sustained.
1. Reject the normalisation of prejudice
Prejudice should never be dismissed as harmless opinion or inevitable conflict. Institutions — from sports leagues and media outlets to political parties — must stand against language and narratives that demean groups of people.
2. Advocate for better media accountability
Use complaint mechanisms with IPSO and other regulators to challenge coverage that breaches professional standards. Public pressure and informed complaints can push editors to reflect on the impact of their coverage.
3. Invest in education and empathy
Rules and codes matter, but culture changes through relationships and empathy. Schools, workplaces, and civic organisations should prioritise education that deepens understanding of difference and shared humanity.
4. Stand with those targeted by hate
Public discourse often centres the discomfort of the majority. Instead, we must centre the voices of those affected by prejudice — whether they are global majority heritage communities, trans people, those of Jewish or Muslim faith, or other minorities targeted because of their difference.
5. Build inclusive coalitions
Defending liberal, open society is not the work of isolated individuals. It requires solidarity across identities and communities ready to act together against narratives of division.
Conclusion: a choice still before us
The permission to hate that I described in 2019 is distressingly alive in 2026, visible in politics and public discourse. But it is a cultural choice. It is reinforced by what we tolerate and what we challenge.
Britain has always been shaped by debate and disagreement, but a healthy society must distinguish between disagreement about policy and rhetoric that delegitimises the worth of others. If we are to resist the licence to hate, the work we do today matters — in our conversations, in the institutions we support, in the complaints we make, and in the way we stand with one another.
The choice remains ours. Let us choose empathy, inclusion and shared dignity over division and fear
C. E. Lord OBE 