- “Labour to whip MPs to vote against grooming gang inquiry” – According to the Sun, Keir Starmer will order his Labour MPs to vote against calls for a new national inquiry into the Asian rape gangs scandal, insisting that the time has passed to ask any more questions.
- “What’s the real reason Labour is reluctant to hold a grooming gangs inquiry?” – Is Jess Phillips reluctant to give the go ahead to an inquiry that might ask difficult and sensitive questions about the identity of the perpetrators? wonders Hardeep Singh in the Spectator.
- “We still don’t know cause of grooming gangs, says scandal reporter” – Andrew Norfolk, the journalist who first exposed the grooming gangs in 2011, tells Fiona Hamilton in the Times that there needs to be proper research into the issues that enable criminals to flourish.
- “The biggest peacetime crime – and cover-up – in British history” – In the Free Press, Dominic Green says the grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades is the biggest peacetime crime in the history of modern Europe.
- “‘Two-tier justice’ after Southport rioters freed but not grandmother who made Facebook post” – The ‘two-tier’ justice debate has been reignited after a grandmother jailed over a Facebook post about the Southport riots was denied parole, while rioters convicted of racial abuse and harassment have been released after serving less than half their sentences, reports Freddie Attenborough for the Free Speech Union.
- “Labour has serious questions to answer” – The public is clamouring for a moment of national recognition for the young victims of the rape gangs who’ve been neglected by the authorities, says the Telegraph in a leading article.
- “‘My grandma might have become a grooming gang victim in present-day Britain’” – Elon Musk has said that his white working-class grandmother might have been abducted by a grooming gang if she had been born in modern Britain, reports the Mail.
- “Elon Musk has ripped the cloak of deceit off one of Britain’s most disgusting scandals” – Starmer’s denunciation of Musk for “spreading lies and misinformation” about Muslim child-rape gangs is an orchestra of discordant duplicity, says Allison Pearson in the Telegraph.
- “The grooming gang scandal needs to change our entire worldview” – In the Spectator, Gareth Roberts argues that the grooming gang scandal is a devastating reality that demands a total rethinking of our worldview.
- “Why is Gisèle Pelicot a hero but not the girls of Rochdale?” – Some in the West appear rather selective about which victims of sexual violence they stand alongside, says Gavin Mortimer in the Spectator.
- “Islamic Sunday school teacher caught with IS video was granted asylum in U.K.” – An Islamic Sunday school teacher who was caught with an ISIS video was granted asylum in the U.K. before giving children “lessons in jihad”, reveals the Telegraph.
- “Tommy Robinson releases podcast from prison prompting investigation” – An investigation has begun into how Tommy Robinson was able to record and release a podcast from his prison cell, reports the Telegraph.
- “Jenrick hints at Tory crackdown on immigration from ‘alien cultures’” – Robert Jenrick has hinted at a Tory crackdown on immigration from countries with “alien cultures”, insisting that government should be “very careful about who is coming into this country”, says the Mail.
- “‘Net zero immigration’ is the way to beat Reform, Badenoch told” – Senior Tories have urged Kemi Badenoch to commit to a “net zero immigration” policy to win back support from Reform U.K., reports the Telegraph.
- “‘I want to mend broken fences with Musk’” – Nigel Farage says he wants to “mend any broken fences” with Elon Musk when he flies to the United States for Donald Trump’s inauguration later this month, according to LBC.
- “Earl Spencer’s old prep school blames Labour’s VAT raid for closure” – A prep school attended by Earl Spencer has blamed Labour’s VAT raid for forcing it to close days after the policy came into force, reports the Telegraph.
- “Labour won’t admit what their VAT raid is about: finishing off private schools” – As term starts this week, the sheer vindictiveness of Labour’s tax raid on private schools is becoming increasingly apparent, writes Nigel Farage in the Telegraph.
- “The four-day working week is coming for our schools” – A number of schools are already experimenting with four-day working weeks, but at what cost to pupils and parents? asks Julie Henry in the Telegraph.
- “Borrowing costs have just passed Liz Truss levels” – In the Spectator, Kate Andrews points out that long-term borrowing costs have soared to a 27-year high, surpassing the spike seen under Liz Truss.
- “Reeves ‘on verge of breaking her own fiscal rules’ as borrowing costs surge” – Rachel Reeves is on the brink of breaking her fiscal rules and being forced into another tax raid, economists have warned as borrowing costs surged to the highest level since 1998, reports the Telegraph.
- “Starmer accepted £1k’s worth of Arsenal tickets last month” – According to the Telegraph, Keir Starmer scored £1,000 worth of Arsenal tickets last month, including VIP seats and corporate hospitality, despite the ‘freebies’ row.
- “Labour sinks to lowest approval rating to date just days into 2025” – A poll shows that Labour’s approval ratings are at a new low with over a third of supporters unhappy about their first six months in power, according to GB News.
- “Manhunt launched after schoolboy, 14, stabbed to death on London bus” – Murder detectives are hunting for a knifeman after a 14 year-old schoolboy was stabbed to death on a London bus, reports the Mail.
- “Reeves exposes her own hypocrisy over ‘freezing cold pensioners’” – Pensioners are skipping meals to keep the heating on, but there’s no sign of the empathy once voiced by the Chancellor, notes Joe Wright in the Telegraph.
- “Can the grid cope with many more EV chargers?” – In the Spectator, Ross Clark questions whether the grid can handle the massive influx of electric vehicle chargers, as local authorities plan for hundreds of thousands of new points.
- “North Sea gas production to plunge after Ed Miliband crackdown” – North Sea gas production is forecast to plunge faster than ever as windfall taxes and a Net Zero crackdown by Ed Miliband drive investors away, reports the Telegraph.
- “Why Miliband’s turbine building spree leaves Britain vulnerable to Putin’s missiles” – A growing reliance on offshore wind threatens to expose U.K. energy assets to Russia’s ‘grey zone’ warfare, warns Matt Oliver in the Telegraph.
- “BBC boss wins fight against building of ‘suburban’ homes next to his £4 million farmhouse” – BBC Director General Tim Davie has won an appeal to stop two luxury homes from being built next to his £4 million farmhouse, after claiming they were “too suburban”, reports the Mail.
- “Wildfire burns in Los Angeles as thousands told to flee” – A fast-moving wildfire in a Los Angeles suburb that is home to many Hollywood celebrities has burned buildings and led to panicked evacuation, says the LA Times.
- “The MHRA papers – part four” – On the TTE Substack, Dr. Tom Jefferson and Prof. Carl Heneghan expose the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s murky vaccine approval process.
- “Excess fluoride exposure lowers IQ in children” – A new landmark meta-analysis indicates the need to halt artificial water fluoridation using industrial byproducts, reports Nicolas Hulscher on the Courageous Discourse Substack.
- “The ‘crunchy mom’ influencers embracing MAHA” – American moms are enthused by RFK Jr.’s plans to Make America Healthy Again, writes Josie Ensor in the Times.
- “EU considers legal action against Musk over election interference” – Brussels is considering punishing Elon Musk over his alleged interference in the German elections, reports Politico.
- “There’s something hypocritical about Macron attacking Musk” – Macron’s attack on Musk reeks of hypocrisy – especially considering his own history of foreign meddling, says Gavin Mortimer in the Spectator.
- “Elon Musk isn’t an extremist threat” – In the Spectator, Liam Duffy argues that blaming Musk for extremism risks missing the real issue, undermines freedom of speech and does little to address the deeper societal divides fuelling unrest.
- “Charlie Hebdo massacre, minute by minute” – In the Mail, Stephen Matthews explores how two jihadi brothers and their Jew-hating ISIS friend slaughtered 17 innocent victims in a 3-day terror rampage.
- “Charlie Hebdo publishes ‘laugh at God’ contest on 10th anniversary of terror attack” – Ten years after the attack that decimated the newspaper’s staff, Charlie Hebdo’s anniversary edition celebrates “the desire to laugh” and satire as a source of “optimism”, reports Le Monde.
- “Jean-Marie Le Pen, hard-Right provocateur of French politics who won millions of votes” – The Telegraph remembers Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Right-wing provocateur who made millions feel heard with his anti-immigrant rhetoric.
- “This mass migration disaster will be Trudeau’s legacy” – Justin Trudeau turned the Liberal Party from a pragmatic centre-Left force into one which pushed Canada to the brink, writes Maxime Bernier in the Telegraph.
- “Who will replace Justin Trudeau as Canada’s next Prime Minister?” – The Canadian Prime Minister is resigning after nine years in office. The Times explores what comes next.
- “Mark Carney considering run to be Canada’s Prime Minister” – Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England, is considering a run to succeed Justin Trudeau and become the Prime Minister of Canada, reports the Mail.
- “Mark Carney is not fit to be Canadian PM” – It takes only a cursory glance at his record as Governor of the Bank of England to work out that Carney’s reputation is completely overblown – and in reality he’s not fit to be Canada’s next Prime Minister, says Matthew Lynn in the Spectator.
- “Trump refuses to rule out using U.S. military to annex Greenland” – Donald Trump has refused to rule out using the U.S. military to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal while announcing plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, reports the Mail.
- “Facebook just signalled the end of the fact-checker as censor – good riddance” – With Donald Trump’s second inauguration less than two weeks away, Mark Zuckerberg appears desperate to make amends, writes Andrew Orlowski in the Telegraph.
- “Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong” – The Telegraph lists some of the missteps that led to the end of Facebook’s prevention measures against fake news.
- “Royal Society of Literature in meltdown over diversity drive” – The Spectator’s Steerpike reports on the diversity row engulfing the Royal Society of Literature.
- “The war on elitism is an attack on excellence” – The Royal Society of Literature’s travails are just the latest case study of our institutions’ self-abasement, says Annabel Denham in the Telegraph.
- “How the ‘Be Kind’ brigade exposed their hypocrisy” – The ‘just be nice to everyone’ narrative hides an uncomfortable truth – that women must be careful not to say the wrong thing, writes Julie Bindel in the Telegraph.
- “Black Lives Matter is over. When will our universities notice?” – It’s not 2020 any more. So could someone please tell our academics they can stop wittering about ‘decolonisation’ now? says Michael Deacon in the Telegraph.
- “McDonald’s rolls back DEI programs, ending push for greater diversity” – Four years after launching a push for more diversity in its managerial ranks, McDonald’s is making a U-turn, according to the Guardian.
- “Apple told to drop AI that pushed fake BBC News stories” – Apple is facing fresh calls to withdraw its controversial AI feature that has generated inaccurate news alerts on its latest iPhones, reports the BBC.
- “Lonely this Christmas” – On Substack, Frank Haviland reflects on the cruel realities of divorce and the haunting emptiness of a father’s first Christmas without his children.
- “‘He wasn’t so popular after all’” – Our own Will Jones discusses the disastrous legacy of Justin Trudeau with Julia Harty-Brewer on TalkTV after the Canadian Prime Minister announced his resignation.
If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I don’t plan to read a 70 page opinion from another country’s supreme court about their own affairs but the quoted passed raises some philosophically interesting points and is not as clear cut as Gorsuch implies.
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include”. But if that is true, what are we even debating?
Think of two extremes.
It would be quite shocking to return to the days where a landlord would refuse to offer a room based blatantly on race (remember “no Irish, no niggers”). This kind of thing is presumably the basis of the idea that a company – or an individual – cannot refuse full and equal enjoyment of services.
On the other hand suppose a publisher were asked to design a web site (or printed material) with blatantly racist content. In this sense a company should have the right to refuse to include these messages.
The distinction is between refusing services based on who is receiving the service (particularly if this is based on race, gender, sexual preference etc) as opposed to refusing to provide certain kind of services independently of who is asking for them. This is merely an extension of a fairly obvious right to refuse to make or do anything if you think the object or service is immoral.
I don’t know the details of the Lorie Smith case but it may well be poised between these two cases. Remember that her concern was not that she might be forced to included certain material in web sites but that she might be forced to offer her services to gay couples. The service being offered is in some senses the same service that is being offered to heterosexual couples but the fact that the couple is gay might be taken to imply an approval of gay relationships.
It is not obvious to me that the dissent is self-contradictory.
I discussed this in my previous article (and I didn’t want to repeat myself here), but it’s important to recognise the distinction between providing goods and services (e.g., hotel rooms, newspapers, etc.) where speech is only incidental and those where it is important (e.g., writing an article or creating a custom website). Public accommodation laws prevent one refusing to sell goods and services in the former category to someone because of their race, sex, etc.; but when speech is implicated (e.g., writing an article in favour of slavery), one can refuse if one has an objection to it.
The left has tried to claim there’s no distinction between the two, but they end up getting tangled in knots, because they can’t say that people can’t express themselves how they want (because of clearly established law), but at the same time they also have to say that if they want to win. The quote neatly, I think, highlights that central problem with their arguments.
I’d recommend you read Gorsuch’s opinion – it’s not 70 pages long, and it’s very legible and well-explained. It’s on pages 7–32 of the PDF (pages 1–26 of the paper document).
The fundamental point is that if I rent someone a hotel room, I’m not being compelled to say something I don’t believe, but if that person asks me to write or create something objectionable, that’s a different matter.
The fundamental point is that if I rent someone a hotel room, I’m not being compelled to say something I don’t believe, but if that person asks me to write or create something objectionable, that’s a different matter
OK I just read your previous article and you make some good points. I am still not convinced that this primarily about free speech. Almost any product or service can bear a message (think golliwogs). And those services that do include speech or text are not typically taken to be the opinions of the person/company providing the services – certainly no one thinks the content of wedding web sites is the opinion of the web site designer!
Nevertheless I support the right of anyone or any organisation to refuse to provide services or products they genuinely consider to be immoral. This has to be somehow combined with the requirement not to refuse services/products based on the race/gender/sexuality of the recipient. For some services/products this is easier than others.
Wedding web sites are particularly tricky. Most wedding websites are just about where to go, timings, the order of service, what to wear, accommodation. If you removed the pronouns and photographs it would be hard to tell whether it was a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage. (My son is getting married next month so I am up-to-date on this!). What makes the site controversial is the fact the recipients are gay.
I will try to find time to read the mere 26 pages of Gorsuch’s opinion but I suspect the court made the correct decision – I just think the dissent deserved more respect than you implied.
I think it’s pretty simple, MTF. If I am the one providing the service, I and only I decide if I provide it, and I am under no obligation to state my reasoning.
Assuming I am not the State, with a monopoly on certain services, then a person is free to look elsewhere for the service they would have received from me.
That would be my starting point, instinctively.
However some non-state providers of goods and services are effectively monopolies – for example water companies, train operating companies, your local leisure centre provider. Also organisations acting in concert or copying each other or going with the prevailing wind can simply all decide to, for example, refuse to serve people not wearing “covid face coverings” or those not “vaccinated against covid” – and if you think that’s impractical and the market would not let it happen, what about banks refusing to provide banking services to known conservative/free speech organisations and individuals?
So if the service is a room to let or say dentistry then there is nothing immoral in me refusing it to people on the basis of colour or sexual preference as long as I don’t say why?
MAK can give his own answer but my answer would be that something being immoral and being illegal are different things. Most/all illegal things would generally be considered immoral but not all immoral things should necessarily be illegal.
I agree – obviously you can have immoral laws. I guess we are discussing the morality of the law.
My point was more that I might consider a dentist refusing to treat people on the basis of their colour or sexual preference to be immoral but would not necessarily say it should be illegal, though to be honest I am not sure exactly what I think the ideal way of dealing with this is.
I take your point. Not every immoral behaviour should be illegal. This is such a complicated and subtle area. One consideration is that making something illegal can change what is normal and acceptable – so the public idea of what is moral follows the law. I am thinking of things like drinking and driving as well as blatant discrimination. But I digress …
The left had Roe vs Wade, which used (and subsequently tossed aside) a mentally ill, young, pregnant woman who wasn’t going to have an abortion and, indeed, didn’t have an abortion, in order to create a hypothetical case that made abortion legal, so it’s kind of amusing that when a verdict based on hypotheticals goes a different way from the way they want it, they now claim falsehoods.
Roe vs Wade was crazy. At the time the amendment they used to justify it was ratified, I think abortion was illegal everywhere in the US, so the people who ratified it cannot possibly have thought it conferred a right to have an abortion.
Dear downvoter, please explain the flaw in my logic.
They never do, do they? Cowards.
The attacks on Justice Thomas are despicable and silly. He has kept to an originalist line from the start of his tenure, so to claim he is being influenced by gifts is absurd. There’s no evidence for it. From the start he has come in for extra vitriol from the left because he is a black conservative.
As Candace Owens has put it, they don’t like black people who leave the Democrats’ ‘plantation’!
“Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment – Lefties Go Wild”
I lurv headlines like this.
In the not too distant past many people worked as servants. They had to address the people they served with specific titles, names and pronouns. In addition the servants had to do their master’s and mistress’s bidding. It would have been unwise to contradict any of the subservience that was demanded. The Industrial Revolution, WW1 and WW2 allowed many people to escape subservient work.
Now we have a group of people demanding that they are addressed in very specific ways and that they can demand any trade or person to make or do things as they decide without question. The difference between working as a servant or being on the receiving end of the alphabet activists is you could leave an employer and find someone better as a servant, whereas to mis-gender or mis-pronoun or refuse to do what is demanded can result in destructive fines and a criminal record. Why is it OK that one group can demand subservience of others with the backing of the law.
“Bogosity”
Respect.
Apparently Quantum Bogodynamics is a thing, standard unit the Bogon.
“Colorado could have found out about, leading them to apply penalties and force her to attend a re-education camp. She wanted to avoid that.”
My God, Colorado?! Or North Korea
or China?…Why the hell has Colorado got a re-education camp? Have all 54 States got re-education camps? What time do you have to get up? What do you get for breakfast? Does the forced indoctrination include mandatory brainwashing booster injections?
We have lost America, I tell you.