The BRIT Awards used to be about more than trophies, gowns and music chart placements. It used to be a place where music, culture and politics intersected. Because as long as music has existed, it has been a vehicle for speaking out.
In 1995, Prince appeared with the word “SLAVE” written across his cheek, as a quiet but unmistakable protest against his record label dispute and the broader treatment of artists within the industry.
In 2018, Stormzy used his performance to confront the UK government directly regarding the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, rapping, “Yo, Theresa May, where’s that money for Grenfell?” and calling officials “criminals.”
In 2020, Dave delivered a standout, politically charged performance of Black, introducing new verses that criticised media treatment of Meghan Markle, demanded justice for the Windrush generation and condemned the government’s response to Grenfell.
Even as recently as 2023, political expression remained visible when Wet Leg announced "F*** the Tories" in their acceptance speech, reflecting broader social frustration in the UK at the time.
Artists speak out, whether through music or speech. Whether it’s the anti-war stance taken by The Chicks during the Iraq War era, or countless other moments when musicians treated the stage as a public forum rather than purely an entertainment spectacle.
So I find myself asking: why did the 2026 BRIT Awards feel so painfully sanitised of free expression?
At the 2026 ceremony, host Jack Whitehall had several of his political jokes censored during broadcast, including references to politicians — specifically a mention of Peter Mandelson in connection with the Epstein Files.
When Geese won Best International Group, the band was prevented from fully delivering their intended acceptance message when attempting to say “Free Palestine” and “F*ck ICE,” both of which were censored during broadcast audio.
The incident was not isolated. A similar situation occurred at the previous week’s BAFTA ceremony, where director Akinola Davies Jr’s “Free Palestine” statement was removed from broadcast coverage during his acceptance speech.
Another instance of reported censoring occurred when Angry Gringe presented a BRIT Award and reportedly said “London is a sh*thole,” a remark that was also muted during broadcast, seemingly to ITV's disapproval.
But while those moments were bleeped out — and, in my opinion, rather clumsily — other material remained in the broadcast. That included jokes referencing sexual humour involving Paddington Bear (who, thankfully, was not invited to this ceremony) as well as darker lines framed as comedy, such as the reference to West End Girl: “This torpedo didn’t sink a ship, it destroyed a harbour,” in reference to her ex, David Harbour.
It seems frustratingly convenient which jokes and comments are censored and which are not. The pattern feels familiar after last week’s BAFTA ceremony, where the aforementioned “Free Palestine” statement was reportedly removed from broadcast coverage, while the incident involving a Tourettes campaigner was not, despite the broadcast delay.
One might assume the BRITs were operating under heightened sensitivity following the media attention surrounding the BAFTA controversy. Yet the impression left was that the primary concern centred on material that could reflect negatively on UK political figures — or, more broadly, on geopolitical positions that might be uncomfortable for certain institutional or international relationships.
X content
Like the BAFTAs the week before, the broadcast decisions give the impression that anything framing UK political actors — or, more broadly, geopolitical positions uncomfortable to certain institutions — is treated with heightened sensitivity.
The BRITs have, in my view, lost some of the cultural boldness that once defined them. It was also noticeable how many nominated celebrities simply did not attend. Perhaps some artists see little point in delivering heartfelt or meaningful speeches when there is uncertainty about whether they will be allowed to fully express what they intend to say.
Some people prefer music and politics to remain separate, but the truth is that they have always been intertwined. From the era of David Bowie to modern hip-hop and indie protest music, the stage has historically functioned as a cultural megaphone.
X content
The censorship atmosphere surrounding the 2026 BRIT Awards feels like confirmation of a slow shift towards the puppet strings of musical commentary.
At the recent Grammy Awards, artists were able to speak openly about immigration, ICE policy, and geopolitical issues without broadcast suppression. That level of openness feels closer to the tradition of music as social commentary, and, arguably, closer to what awards shows once represented.
If political speech is allowed elsewhere but constrained here, it raises a difficult question: where exactly are artists supposed to speak if not on stages built around artistic recognition?
If we can't disparage the actions of ICE here in the UK, where can we say it?
I am not sure I will be tuning in next year. I already receive enough of this sanitised narration from the news.
