Britain Reaffirms its Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage


michael-savageAn attorney for the British government has reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s decision to ban leading talk-radio host Michael Savage from entry.

WND reported last July the new Conservative-Party-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron informed the popular nationally syndicated host it would continue the ban initiated by the previous administration unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were deemed a threat to public security. The U.K., however, has never specified which statements it thought were so dangerous.

As WND reported in May 2009, then-British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Savage was on a list of 16 people banned from entry because the government believed their views might provoke violence. Smith said it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country.”

Get Michael Savage’s brilliant bestseller, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” for just $4.95 today only – an unheard-of $21 discount!

In the latest communiqué from the British government, Michael Atkins, writing on behalf of the U.K.’s treasury solicitor, told Savage’s London-based attorney, “Your client has not provided any evidence to show that he did not commit the unacceptable behaviour” that prompted the “decision to exclude him, nor has your client provided any acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours.”

Atkins said Savage can do nothing at the moment to affect his status and must wait until December, when the decision is scheduled for review.

Responding to the lastest development, Savage pointed to Cameron and President Obama, during his current trip to the U.K., comparing themselves with President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, “blathering about ‘democracy’ in the Arab world.”

“How about democracy in the U.K.?” asked Savage, referring to his case. “The freedom to a trial? The freedom of appeal? The freedom to set the record straight?

“Why does the Cameron government protect Muslim terrorists and Muslim hate-preachers who espouse the overthrow of the British government, democracy itself, while banning Michael Savage from entering the land of their better forefathers?” he asked.

Savage has received support from Reps. Allen West, R-Fla., and John Culberson, R-Texas, who sent letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging her to review Britain’s ban.

As WND reported, West’s letter pointed out Savage was put on the U.K.’s banned-entry list with “ruthless criminals,” including a Hamas terrorist and Russian skinhead.

West argued there is no basis for the action.

“For a nation who believes in freedom of speech and press,” he wrote, “I have a hard time understanding why such a high level, government department would release this statement when there has not been one incident recorded in the United States regarding Dr. Savage instigating violence, let alone serious criminal acts.”

Culberson, the assistant Republican whip, urged Clinton to use her position to press the U.K. to grant Savage a travel visa immediately.

On his website, Savage has appealed to his listeners to sign a petition urging Clinton to act.

Official U.K. government correspondence shows Savage was put on the list to provide “balance,” because it contained so many Muslim extremists.

‘Big lie’

Savage said last July that the new British government was continuing the Brown government’s “big lie,” based on extracts of radio programs over many years “edited by Soros-backed Media Matters to slander me.”

Savage said that after “over one straight year of legal hell,” he had hoped the new British government would remove his name “from their list of actual murderers and terrorists.”

The U.K.’s list includes Hamas terrorist leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals.

Savage has documented his battle over the ban in his book “Banned in Britain,” which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom-of-information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

“We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,” reads a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” that was obtained as part of Savage’s libel lawsuit against the government and the home secretary. Smith resigned from post in June 2009 in the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds.

An email message dated Nov. 27, 2008, from an unnamed Home Office official, says, with regard to Savage, “I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases.”

Another email points to complicity by other agencies and even former Prime Minister Brown.

The Home Office “intend to include [Savage] in their quarterly stats. … Both the [foreign secretary and prime minister] are firmly behind listing and naming such people,” it reads.

The emails include a message from an unnamed civil servant whose cautions were ignored.

“I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him,” he wrote without explaining the reason.

Smith’s successor as home secretary, Alan Johnson, called the ban a terrible blunder and told the Daily Mail of London he would scrap the policy of maintaining an enemies list. But Savage told WND two days later that, according to his attorney, Johnson’s announcement did not mean his name had been removed from the list.

Savage still demands an apology from Smith, who has admitted she was not up to being home secretary, explaining she should have been given some training for the job before being named.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

The allegations are “entirely false,” the complaint asserts.

“At no time has our client provoked or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts.”

Savage hosts one of the nation’s most popular radio talk shows, with an estimated 8 million listeners a week on about 400 stations, according to his syndicator, the Talk Radio Network.

{WorldNetDaily/ Newscenter}


  1. Contrary to what many right-wing Americans might think, the United Kingdom is a sovereign and independent country. We may look quaint, with an elderly monarch who has been on the throne for nearly sixty years, but I assure you that when it comes to deciding who gets into Britain we mean business.

    In the same way that you or I have the right to decide who visits our homes Her Majesty’s Government is entitled to decide who may -or may not – pass its frontiers and enter.

    Mr Michael Savage may not like this, but he has only to look at the arrivals hall at any US international airport when passengers present their passports and seek admission to the United States. Put another way, why is he so insistent in sticking his nose in where it is patently so unwelcome?

  2. UK Uncle: FACE IT your country is rapidly turning into a third world, middle eastern, sharia law country. Your country is not quaint, its clueless, and defeated.

  3. Please!! there is nothing Independent about the UK .wherever one turns one sees dependency on (for some reason)the Muslim world.

  4. Perhaps Sheker #2 would kindly explain why she thinks that Savage should be admitted to the UK? What concrete purpose would that serve?

    As for “Rosh Hashana” and “UK”, tt is quite clear that those contributors had nothing tangible to add to the debate, so they turned to cheap ‘ad hominem’ attacks – exactly like Michael Savage no doubt does on his radio shows.

    Commenters #2 and #3 were completely pathetic. I had expected something far better than that.

    But heyho, that’s what you get from gung-ho, mindless people I suppose.

  5. Fear not Michael. They don’t deserve you. There are many countries more deserving to have you as a guest. Perhaps Israel? I don’t think you’ve ever visited since you’ve become famous.

  6. Michael is a renegade Jew. He openly talks about eating shrimp! Afra lipumay! I heard him say that religion is voodoo! How can any decent orthodox Jew have any positive feelings to such a Judaism hater?


  8. No it is not.

    Don’t distort the issue in a way that would do credit to Doktor Goebbels ym”s.

    The Brits don’t want him because they do not need yet another foreigner taking advantage of their hospitality and spreading sedition.

    If some foreign racist were do bang and shout, and to demand entrance to the United States would you stand up for HIM? No!

  9. I don’t think being Jewish has anything to do with it. Savage says some pretty virulent things, including against Orthodox Jews. The Brits have every right to ban him without being accused of anti-semitism. That being said, to UK Uncle, I’m not sure why a “concrete purpose” has to be provided as a justification for letting him enter. Generally US citizens don’t need visas to enter foreign countries, including the UK. Does every tourist have to present a “concrete purpose” in order to be admitted?

  10. Brought to you by the people who gave you :Bevangrad,Internment in Cyprus,The hanging of of Dov Gruner,the White Paper and other friendly acts towards the Jewish people

  11. #5 A very simple answer to a very SIMPLE questioner.. M.Savage was accused of being a danger to society and therefore banned from the UK Now I say if this is in fact a reason to refuse someone entry then why the obvious bias and contradictions when it comes to allowing various different Muslim radicals (known ones) in the UK.In summation It is not about why the UK needs him there it is about why the UK is deciding to create him into a monster and only HIM.

  12. Excuse me Mr. Boomslam -Michael Savage is not Jewish his father is Jewish-just beacuse you don’t like his views doesn’t make him a Jew Hater or an anti-semite.For your information- Michael savge stands up for the Orthodox Jews he says they are the only real moral people around- he did put down the non- religious Jew for not standing up for Israel.For the most part Michael Savage’s veiws align with ours.

    1)Belief in God
    2)Pro family-anti-abortion

    He does rant and rave about the moral decline of the world at large.
    Now i’m not suggesting that people listen to his radio show-because he doesn’t always talk about things that are tznius.

    However he doesn’t desrve to be banned.
    I have listened to his show and I can asses that he is one of the only radio talk show hosts besides for Steve Malzberg who not only stands up for Frum Jews-while the rest of the media put the Frum oilam down-but praises us as well.

    He is in no way compared to murderous terrorists who were banned on the same list he is.If you are talking about racists -what about the muslims that threaten to kill the Jews and overthrow the British Monarchy every day-who have riots about how they have to kill the “infidel”?!

  13. To the UK Uncle. It’s OK, if you feel very British and turn your nose up to this guy. But remember that the same British that you so eloquently support denying the Savage, will readily accept every Muslim ???.
    Now regarding the Savage. I have little respect for this guy. He was busy being ???? ????? the ??????? last week. Granted that he is a ????? ?????, but still, why does he have to go around repeating the ????? ?? that the Jews handed over the ?????? The ????? was a ????? of ?’ ????? ?? ???? which doesn’t dove-tail with timing that the ?????? are promoting.

  14. from what’s been posted previous times, his mother is supposedly not jewish, not that it should make a difference in why he’s been banned in England.