An in-depth examination of the alleged use of deepfake videos by Labour in Tower Hamlets, exploring both the legal ramifications and the underlying motivations behind such controversial and high-risk tactics.
Post-Christmas Shock: Deepfake Video Spreads Across Tower Hamlets Social Media
Just before Christmas, on 24th December, reports emerged that the United States government had imposed sanctions on Imran Ahmed, a senior figure associated with the Labour Party, following representations from major technology firms. Ahmed previously served as an aide to Labour minister Hilary Benn, and Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, has served as a director of the organisation Ahmed founded—the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). CCDH presents itself as an advocate for government intervention against online hate speech and disinformation, and maintains close links with senior Labour figures.
Against this backdrop, concerns arise whether the party’s stated commitment to combating online disinformation has been consistently applied at a local level. On 29th December 2025, Labour Party members and supporters were reported to have distributed an AI-generated deepfake video targeting the current Aspire administration in Tower Hamlets. The video was circulated without any AI disclosure or labelling and was presented in a format resembling a news report.
The absence of both AI labelling and a statutory imprint carries serious legal implications. Without such disclosures, the content risks being construed as a statement of fact rather than opinion, potentially exposing those responsible to regulatory and criminal prosecution.
The Legal Consequences of “Do as I Say, Not as I Do”
The absence of labelling on AI-generated material carries serious legal and electoral consequences. Under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is a criminal offence to make or publish a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, knowing it to be false. This is done with the intent of influencing the outcome of an election. A deepfake video that depicts a news report and presents this as real without any AI disclosure or satirical labelling would almost certainly fall within this definition.
Further, such material may engage provisions of the Fraud Act 2006. While traditionally applied to financial wrongdoing, the Act is technology-neutral and covers any false representation made dishonestly with the intent to gain an advantage or cause loss. In the context of politics, circulating a deepfake video to mislead voters, campaigners, or donors could be construed as a deliberate attempt to secure political advantage through deception.
Electoral law adds another layer of liability. UK regulations require all campaign material, including digital content, to carry a clear imprint stating who produced it, on whose behalf, and how they can be contacted. Distributing anonymous deepfake videos without any such attribution is unlawful in itself, independent of the content’s accuracy.
Taken together, these legal frameworks make the use of unlabelled deepfake videos an exceptionally risky and potentially criminal strategy. It is hard to comprehend that a major political party would pursue such a reckless approach, risking both legal sanctions and public trust in the democratic process.
“Jobs for the Boys”: Desperate Times, Desperate Measures?
With just five months to go before the elections, the Labour Party is facing a striking shortage of candidates in Tower Hamlets. In December, the party suspended its selection process, citing a lack of female nominees, leaving just over half of the contested council seats filled.
Party insiders describe the situation as largely self-inflicted. Instead of allocating winnable seats strategically, Tower Hamlets Labour leadership reportedly awarded a disproportionate number to male candidates, leaving women to contest less competitive areas such as Bow East and Mile End. The result has been a chilling effect on female participation, with many reluctant to stand in marginal seats.
The problem, according to sources, reflects a deeper leadership vacuum. The Tower Hamlets Labour Party appear to have been left largely to their own devices by Labour HQ, creating a void that a “manospheric” chaotic inner circle around mayoral candidate Siraj Islam has filled. Multiple, often contradictory strategies have been pursued simultaneously, with little clear coordination or accountability.
As a result, Labour enters the final months before the election in a state of organisational disarray. Raising serious questions about its preparedness and internal cohesion, a rapid metamorphosis from a political party to a Chai Walla Party (a ‘Mad Hatter’s’ Tea Party).
“It’s always tea-time, and we’ve no time to wash the things between whiles.”
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
Recent Comments