News Round-Up

    If you have any tips for inclusion in the round-up, email us here.

    Subscribe
    Notify of

    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.

    12 Comments
    Oldest
    Newest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    stewart
    16 days ago

    Stella O’Malley in UnHerd is having second thoughts about a social media ban for teenagers, questioning who decides what content is harmful.

    Well done Stela O’Maley for discovering the most evident and obvious argument against censorship and in favour free speech.

    It’s an argument that has been around, I don’t, basically for ever. And unlike most arguments it was, is and will continue to be the clinching argument in the free speech debate. The one for which there is no reply.

    Not to belabour the point but it’s an argument that I encountered and understood perfectly well when I was about 10 years old.

    pjar
    16 days ago
    Reply to  stewart

    I think you mean the “who will decide what is harmful” argument?

    The answer is the same as it ever was, about pretty much everything: “We will, because we are wiser than you”.

    The only thing that changes in this equation is who ‘we’ are. And, as with much of the legislation that is being pushed through at the moment, it matters only when a less benign government comes along to take advantage of it.

    Monro
    16 days ago
    Reply to  pjar

    ‘A less benign government’. Benign: ‘gentle and kindly’.

    transmissionofflame
    16 days ago
    Reply to  pjar

    The current government is anything but benign. I don’t think it’s in the nature of governments to be benign, regardless of their stated political persuasion. Some are better than others, but best not to trust them more than absolutely necessary.

    They will try to appear wise in order to get enough people onside for their suppression of free speech to be sustainable.

    Claphamanian
    Claphamanian
    16 days ago

    Does Camilla Tominey realise that the Church of England could have had gay marriage 30 years ago if this Church had jettisoned the African churches?

    The C of E is one of the things of Caesar. It never had the task of representing ethnicity or class.

    Monro
    16 days ago

    Trump weighs new ‘pay to play’ Nato

    An excellent idea. How can Britain participate? Very straightforward; simply junk the pursuit of net zero and increase defence spending to the required amount.

    ‘The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence. Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom…Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’ The Renewable Energy Foundation 2024′

    Claphamanian
    Claphamanian
    16 days ago

    Camilla Tominey tries to keep her cake and eat it at the same time. She welcomes the ‘installation’ of the first female archbishop. Yet Mullallah is an Archpriestess. Religions that have had priestesses have been markedly different from those that do not. Camilla worries over the decline of church marriages. Yet the C of E did not defend marriage against no fault divorce in the 1960s. The Labour regime’s indication that they will issue an apology for ‘forced adoptions’ in the decades after 1945 will really be an apology for the governments of the time trying to defend marriage. It will not even be an apology for trying to defend marriage by that method. Undoubtedly, the distress of these aged women who had teenage pregnancies 60 years ago is genuine. But they can now gain the kudos of the victim, obscuring any responsibility for their own action at the time. Today, freed from the anxiety when as a very young person they may have faced the prospect of being unable to work and look after a child, these women can heap all their guilt on the British state of the time, and all the opprobrium that was once poured on them onto their parents or society. Note especially that no one asks the boyfriends of these women what they… Read more »

    MajorMajor
    MajorMajor
    16 days ago
    Reply to  Claphamanian

    Undoubtedly, the distress of these aged women who had teenage pregnancies 60 years ago is genuine. But they can now gain the kudos of the victim, obscuring any responsibility for their own action at the time.”

    Exactly.
    These women feel guilty.
    Undoubtedly, they acted under pressure, but the fact is that they gave up their babies.
    Their babies were not physically dragged out of their hands. They had to sign papers.
    Despite the pressure, not every single woman did it. Some accepted the hardship and shame that came with being an unmarried mother.
    In religious terms, these women want public absolution for their sins from the state. They want the state to accept responsibility and say “it wasn’t you, it was me”.
    I can’t see how this could work. It is a form of self-deception, besides – how can the government of 2026 be accountable for the actions of the fifties and sixties?

    Dinger64
    15 days ago

    “Police probe into ‘family voting’ in Gorton and Denton by-election finds ‘no evidence’ of law breaches after Reform UK’s complaint of ‘cheating”

    And who is surprised by this outcome?
    Muslims could eat your babies in a police station and no action would be taken!

    Dinger64
    15 days ago

    “Trans-owned bookshop invites customers to vandalise J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter novels”

    I do hope no one vandalises the bookshop!🙄

    Purpleone
    15 days ago
    Reply to  Dinger64

    Doesn’t seem a very good way to support the sale of books, which I assume would be core to ‘being a bookshop’?…

    Andante
    Andante
    14 days ago
    Reply to  Dinger64

    So a bookshop gets a pile of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter novels, which the bookshop has to pay for. Then they get ‘customers’ to come in and vandalise them, which means they can’t be sold … so what does the bookshop do with them? Put them in a pile outside and set fire to them? Where have I heard that happening previously?