Within minutes of publishing our recent article — “Robert Jenrick Exposes Top Immigration Judge for Far-left and Open Border Views” — The Conservative Post received a formal demand from the law chambers representing the KC in question, Greg Ó Ceallaigh, calling for the removal of a still image used to illustrate the piece.
The image in question? A simple screengrab taken from a publicly accessible webinar titled: “Refugee Week: Removals to Rwanda and Inadmissible Asylum Claims.”
The email, sent by a representative of Ó Ceallaigh’s chambers, claimed that the use of the image infringed copyright and linked to UK government guidance on digital images. It requested that the image be taken down — despite the fact that, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, UK media are permitted to use still images from video content under fair dealing provisions for the purposes of news reporting, criticism or review.
This was the Chamber’s email to our editor:
This was our Editor’s response:
Intimidation Tactics? Or Just Fast Lawfare?
The timing is notable. The email came almost immediately after publication — faster than many press officers can issue a correction. It raises serious questions:
- Was this a coordinated effort to suppress a legitimate news story?
- Why is a law chambers invoking copyright in a scenario where fair dealing clearly applies?
- And crucially, why are these tactics used so effectively — and so quickly — by those on the Left?
As one former Home Office insider told The Conservative Post, left-wing legal activists were regularly mobilising at 4am to halt deportation flights to Rwanda.
“They bombard you. They throw every punch, file every motion, and face consequences later,” they said.
This is the machinery at work. This is what we are up against.
A Pattern of Legal Aggression
We’re seeing it time and again: conservative media and voices face legal and procedural pressure not over falsehoods or inaccuracies, but over presentation, tone, or — in this case — an entirely legitimate image used under UK law.
And let’s be clear: this image was not stolen or leaked. It was a screen grab from a public webinar hosted by the very chambers now raising objections.
What makes this even more ironic is that the chambers involved — legal professionals who should know the boundaries of copyright and the fair dealing provisions afforded to the press — appear to be using legalistic pressure in a way that feels less about copyright, and more about control.
Where’s the Right’s Legal Muscle?
This latest episode highlights a wider truth: the Left knows how to use the legal system to fight battles, both in court and in the media. They organise, they prepare, and when necessary, they pounce.
Meanwhile, the Right — too often — plays fair.
We respect rules. We don’t intimidate. We don’t bombard inboxes at dawn. We assume that the law will protect us, rather than actively using it as a weapon — as the Left so often does.
That must change. Thankfully the Great British PAC has arrived and is promising to fight for the right.
We Stand By Our Journalism
At The Conservative Post, we stand by our article. It is factual. It is sourced. And it reveals important truths about the political leanings of members of the judiciary making critical decisions about immigration in this country.
We also stand by our use of the image — which falls under fair dealing provisions as set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The law is clear:
“Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of News reporting current events does not infringe copyright…”
Which is what we were doing.
This isn’t just about one photo. It’s about freedom of the press, the creeping politicisation of our institutions, and the growing use of legal threats to silence dissent.
We won’t be intimidated. And we won’t be silenced.
The SRA has “Principles and Code of Conduct” which define the responsibilities of solicitors to “third parties” (i.e. not them or their client) which require that solicitors do not attempt to take advantage of any lack of legal knowledge.
These people may be barristers, not solicitors, but if so then I imagine there’s a similar stipulation.
Perhaps those affected by this kind of lawfare should roiutinely raise a complaint with the relevant legal body.