On 8 July 2026, ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ published an episode with leader of the far-right ‘Restore Britain’ party, Rupert Lowe. While disseminating misinformation and disinformation is not new for Rogan, this does continue a significant trend where US media platforms are amplifying right-wing voices from the UK. At the beginning of the podcast, both Lowe and Rogan claimed that Elon Musk had a hand in bringing the two together.
The day it was published, I saw a compilation of some of the most wacky moments from the podcast. Watching it, I found myself yelling at the screen, exclaiming how almost all of things that were being claimed by Lowe were absolute fabrications. I was aghast at watching Rogan eat it all up, Islamphobia and all, with no push back.
We are increasingly living in a polarised society that no longer strives to maintain a fact-based reality. This has real life consequences, be it the worsening climate crisis, increases in hate crimes, and growing inequality.
At the time of writing, the podcast had over 2 million views. The lies that Lowe has uttered will inevitably circulate into public discourse, both online, and in person.
So I listened to all two hours of the podcast and fact checked it so you don’t have to!
Some notes on the content and structure of the fact check. There was a lot said in the podcast, and I did not have the capacity to write up and do the required reseach for an adequate fact check for every untruth that was said. I focused on what I felt were the most egregious examples and the ones that I felt would be more likely to leak into public discoruse. Different claims are organised into themes, as Lowe and Rogan would often wander in their conversation. I have provided references to authoritative sources where possible which are linked in each fact check.
Theme 1: Asylum Seekers and Immigration
Claim 1: Migrants are staying in Luxury Hotels
Rupert: I’ve seen the contracts for…these illegal migrants in terms of the laundry services they get, in terms of the taxi services they get, in terms of the food they require. I mean literally, it is like…staying in a very comfortable hotel.
False – While asylum seekers may be placed in facilities that were formerly used as “luxury hotels”, there is no indication that they maintain these levels of comfort, and in fact it is quite the opposite. In 2023, the charity ‘Migrant Voice’ reported that asylum seekers often experienced conditions that included “cramped accommodation”, a lack of adequate sanitary facilities, and food that was “almost inedible”.[1] A separate 2025 report from the ‘Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex & London’ reiterated these findings, stating “thousands of people [are] forces to live in cramped, unsafe, and inadequate conditions for months or even years at a time”.[2]
Sources:
[1]https://www.migrantvoice.org/img/upload/No_rest,_no_security._Report_into_the_experiences_of_asylum_seekers_in_hotels_-_Migrant_Voice_2023_.pdf
[2]https://www.rmjustice.org.uk/downloads/reports/rmj001profitingfrompeoplereportv5.pdf
Claim 2: Migrants and asylum seekers get preferential NHS treatment
Rupert: [migrants/asylum seekers] go to top of the waiting list for dental treatment, which British people don’t get, the NHS [they] go to the top of the waiting list.
Assessment:
False – In January 2026, a spokesperson for the UK Department of Health and Social was quoted to state that “Asylum seekers do not receive preferential treatment on the NHS. The NHS always prioritises care in order of clinical need”.[1] In 2023, the Guardian reported that “several” refugees had “been told that they must wait for weeks or months to see a dentist”.[2] At the time of writing, no evidence has been observed that asylum seekers are prioritised for medical treatment, with prioritisation being allocated based on “clinical urgency”.[3][4]
Sources:
[1]https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/fact-check-uk-dental-clinic-gives-appointments-all-nhs-patients-not-only-2026-01-05/
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/11/asylum-seekers-in-britain-obliged-to-grit-their-teeth
[3]https://fullfact.org/immigration/asylum-seekers-nhs-waiting-lists/
[4]https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/questions-of-fairness-how-should-the-nhs-prioritise-people-waiting-for-care
Theme 2: Islam / ‘Grooming gangs’
Claim 3: “Sharia Courts” dishing out punishments
Rupert: …we’ll then turn our attention to people… who are culturally different to us, who have a different view… of their religion to the Christian religion… who are living under Sharia law… and who have their own courts.
[A few sentences later]
Joe: …They’re [the British government] aware of the punishments this court dishes out?
Rupert: Its rather like their policing their own people under their own laws.
Joe: and they’re just allowing that?
Rupert: …They’re allowing that, yep
Joe: Woooooaaaaah
Assessment:
False – According to a 2018 independent review by the Secretary of State for Home Department, Sharia councils, often mislabelled Sharia courts, have “no legal status and no binding authority under civil law” with ‘sharia’ having no “legal jurisdiction”. Sharia councils are “voluntary local association[s] of scholars who see themselves or are seen by their communities as authorised to offer advice to Muslims principally in the field of religious marriage and divorce. According to the review 90% of people using Sharia councils “are women seeking Islamic divorce”. It caveats by adding that “men do contact the councils but this is rare” due to how divorce law is conducted under Islam.”[1]
There is no evidence that these courts administer sharia style “punishments” as Rupert claims. It is worth noting that Jews in the UK have institutions, known as the Beth Din, which administer similar services.[2]
Sources:
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf
Claim 4: Cultural or religious reasons for rape by Muslims
Rupert: …the more we read this and the more we carried on with the rape gang uh inquiry, the more it became clear to us that obviously there’s a link… there is a cultural difference of opinion between an open high trust Christian view of women… and the Islamic view of women… …of course there are white people who perpetrate rape as well but nothing on the scale of this.
Assessment:
False – Rupert’s statement implies that due cultural reasons, rape is more likely to occur amongst Muslim populations within the UK. A 2020 UK Home Office report titled ‘Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation Characteristics of Offending’ claimed that research on the ethnicity of offenders of group-based Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) was “limited”. It added this made it “difficult to draw conclusions” on “whether certain ethnicities are over-represented in this type of offending”. It went on to say that while “some” research suggested that “high numbers of” Asian or Black ethnicities were committing group-based CSE offences it was “not possible to say whether these groups are over represented in this type of offending”. It went on to say to assess that, based on “existing evidence” and understandings of "flaws in the existing data, the “majority offenders” of group-based CSE offenders were “White”.[1]
As Lowe attempted to contrast Islam and Christianity as an explanatory factor for rape and claimed” “white people” had not perpetrated rape on the scale of ‘grooming gangs’, it is worth noting that, according to an independent inquiry into the Catholic Church, it was reported that between 1970 and 2015 there were more than 3,000 complaints of alleged sexual abuse made against the Catholic Church involving 1,750 victims.[2]
Sources:
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf
[2]https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221215044344/https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/23357/view/catholic-church-investigation-report-4-december-2020.pdf
Claim 5: Islam views women dressed in “ways other than…Sharia”… as “meat”
Rupert: I think their view of, as you say women who dress uh in ways other than uh the ways of Sharia… it’s all in uh various of the hadiths which which which we quote in the rape gang report. They are considered to be meat.
Assessment:
False – While there are extensive books of hadith, no example of a hadith published in the English language referring to women as “meat” could be identified. It is also worth noting that no hadith like this was quoted in Rupert’s so-called report as he claims. [1]
Later in the interview when Joe asks if Islam actually uses the term “meat”, Rupert flounders, and says he does not know the quote off-hand, but it is in the report.
Sources:
[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6810978a41bbc42489eafa81/t/6a314bb1151e511944bd4421/1781615537601/The+Rape+Gang+Inquiry+Report.pdf
Claim 6: Muslims “effectively” taught rape of white girl is not rape
Rupert: There are all sorts of… hadith rulings which they can uh they can use to justify it… if they rape a white girl that doesn’t count in their…view of life as adultery… so they are effectively uh taught that a girl who doesn’t dress as they would dress is meat to be abused.
Assessment:
Misleading – As mentioned above there is no hadith that has been observed that refers to women, or particularly white women as “meat”. Rupert is misleading here, as generalises the behaviour witnessed about Muslim CSE perpetrators and extrapolates that onto Islam and Muslim cultures without providing direct quotations of said hadith.
Claim 7: “Quarter of a million” victims of grooming gangs
Joe: So, this rape gang inquiry…. What’s the number of people that were victims, the estimate?
Rupert: Well, we’ve estimated that a minimum of a quarter of a million uh uh rapes have taken place. Its… probably much much more”
Assessment:
False – First it is worth noting that Rupert’s so called inquiry does not claim to be the origin of this figure. Instead it states that it “has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma.”[1]
The source of this claim, referenced by Lowe’s report, is Lord Pearson of Rannoch during a 14 May 2019 debate. Pearson came to the figure by “extrapolat[ing] nationally the Jay Report on Rotherham and other reports”. [2] Lowe’s report endorses this methodology, adding that additional data justifies making this extrapolation.
This methodology applies the count of CSE victims of Rotheram and Telford to 149 local authority districts across the UK without justifying or providing sufficient evidence that the same scale of crimes has occurred in these areas.
Sources:
[1]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6810978a41bbc42489eafa81/t/6a314bb1151e511944bd4421/1781615537601/The+Rape+Gang+Inquiry+Report.pdf
Claim 8: UK government will not have a statutory inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’
Rupert: We did it [launched an ‘inquiry’ into grooming gangs] because the government will not have a statutory inquiry…”
Assessment:
False – ‘The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs’ began on 31 March 2026 following the recommendation of Baroness Louise Casey’s ‘National Audit on Group-base Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse’, published in June 2025. The Inquiry is “conducting national accountability hearings” and has powers to “compel witnesses to give evidence and require organisations to provide documents”.[1]
[1]https://www.grooming-gangs.independent-inquiry.uk/about-the-inquiry/
Theme 3: UK Societal Claims
Claim 9: Lucy Connelly “locked up” for “emotional” social media post
Rupert: On your point on social media posts, there was a lovely lady, Lucy Connelly, uh who was locked up for something, for thirty-two months for just a very uh emotional uh social media post which she deleted after four hours about the Southport killings…
Assessment:
Misleading – Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty to the charge of inciting racial hatred with the “intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby.” It was specified that the “on 29 July 2024 she “published and distributed written material: on X which was “threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred”. The post in question stated:
“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
It was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times.[1]
Sources:
[1]http://judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf
Claim 10: Women have “omnipotent position” in UK society
Rupert: we are a matriarchal society which respects women… they’ve now got an omnipotent position in our society”
Assessment:
False – According to the National Police Chief’s Council a woman is killed “every three days in the UK”. Additionally, “violence against women and girls makes up just under 20%” of “all recorded crimes in England and Wales”. [1]
Sources:
[1]https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/violence-against-women-and-girls/
Claim 11: UK banned handguns after one murder
Rupert: As you probably know they banned handguns uh uh uh in the lates 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane.
Joe: One murder.
Rupert: One murder.
Assessment:
False – The Dunblane massacre of March 13, 1996, involved a gunman entering a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and fatally shooting 16 children and a teacher before killing himself. This incident resulted in the Snowdrop Campaign, initiated by the residents of the town, which resulted in a ban of private ownership of handguns over .22 calibre in February 1997, with a subsequent ban on the private ownership of all handguns in November 1997.[1]
Sources:
[1]https://www.britannica.com/event/Dunblane-school-massacre#ref472731
Theme 3: Historical claims
Claim 12: Britain was “never” antisemitic
Rupert: I mean Britain used to be a very tolerant society. So for instance, Europe was very antisemitic. Britian was never antisemitic.”
Assessment:
False – Never is a very strong claim, as is easily falsified. According ‘the Museum of Jewish Heritage’, and the University of Oxford, the “entire” Jewish population was “expelled from England in 1290 “.[1][2]According to an MA thesis by Oliver Brown at the University of Gloucestershire, during World War One “and in the immediate years after”, anti-semitism “was rife throughout the political and editorial right-wing” in the UK.[3]
In an excerpt of ‘Whitehall and the Jews, 1933-1948’, we can read that “while Britian did offer refuge to some Jews between 1933-1948, this number was small compared to the amount who attempted entry”. While Jewish children were admitted, their parents were not “allowed to accompany their children to safety”. This was because government officials were “afraid of fostering home-grown antisemitism” and viewed children as “likely to assimilate and acculturate into British society more successfully than adults”. Additionally, between 1933 – 1938 UK government departments only allowed Jews to enter under “certain conditions”. It adds that when “when the refugee problem escalated into crisis proportions”, UK officials “instituted strict visa controls on Austrian and German passport holders in order to stem the flow of refugees to Britain.[4]
In 1937, in an unpublished article attributed to Winston Churchill, he claimed stated that “It may be that, unwittingly, they [the Jews] are inviting persecution”.[5]
Sources:
[1]https://mjhnyc.org/events/the-history-of-antisemitism-expulsion-of-jews-from-england/
[2]https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/::ognode-637356::/files/download-resource-printable-pdf-5
[3]https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/10440/1/10440_Brown,_O._%20(2021)_Master_of_Arts_by_Research_Thesis_British_Right-Wing_Anti-Semitism_1918-1930.pdf
Claim 13: UK legacy of colonialism led to “flourishing”
Rupert: I've studied a lot of history. Uh I think there are many other cultures, probably the Belgians and and the French who are far more brutal than us… with their…colonies. I think we’ve tended to leave a legacy where we’ve tried to instil a rule of law. Look at India, look… at a lot of the other countries that we… were involved with… they’re now flourishing because of the I think the structures that we left in place.
Misleading/ False – Ruperts claims are both ahistorical and contradictory to statements he made throughout the podcast. For example, during the podcast, Rupert describes Pakistan as a “rogue state”. Has he forgotten Pakistan was a part of the British Empire? Similarly, as seen in this fact check, Rupert has many criticisms of Islam. Does he forget that much of the Middle East, composed of many muslim majority countries, was a part of the British Empire. That with the French, the British divided up the region via Sykes Picot, which many attribute as a massive factor in the ongoing instability in the region.[1]
Rupert claims that the British were better than the French or the Belgians. I think this is a bizarre analysis, and difficult to assess. How does one undertake a comparative moral assessment of collective atrocities? Instead, lets peek at the British record of India, as Rupert referenced it. The British were behind the Amritsar massacre, where British troops fired upon “unarmed” civilians with an estimated 379 dead and 1,200 injured.[2] The British were also responsible for the Bengal Famine in 1943 resulting in the deaths of approximately three million people.[3] The Partition of India, also under the British, led to the deaths of between 200,000 and two million people.[4] Some estimate that there were up to 165 million excess deaths in India under British rule between 1881 and 1920.[5]
Sources:
[1]https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement
[2]https://www.britannica.com/event/Jallianwala-Bagh-Massacre
[3]https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bengal-famine-of-1943
[4]https://www.britannica.com/event/Partition-of-India
[5]https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians