In a report that has sparked significant public outcry, GB News has revealed that British taxpayers are footing a massive legal bill for two convicted child sex predators.
Cousins Manzorr Hussain and Imtiaz Ali were sentenced in December 2025 to a combined total of 58 years in prison for a horrific campaign of grooming and sexual abuse against five vulnerable girls. However, exclusive findings show that the defense for these heinous crimes was funded by the very public the criminals victimized.
“Ali began abusing the girls with his relatives shortly after his arrival in the UK from Pakistan in 1996. &#8230; One victim tearfully read her impact statement from the witness box, shielded by screens from the defendants in the dock,” ITV News <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-12-08/jailed-groomers-branded-scum-of-the-earth-in-court-by-victim">reported</a>. “The woman said some men would come to her school to pick her up and she suffered three years of rape and sex abuse from the age of 13, leading to ‘30 years of shame.’ She added: ‘You are nothing better than pedophiles, rapists and scum of the earth. You are the lowest of the low.’”
According to Freedom of Information requests obtained by the outlet, at least £150,000 in legal aid has been spent on the duo’s defense. Specifically, Ali — who was sentenced to 28 years for hosting &#8220;sick sex parties&#8221; where girls as young as 13 were plied with drugs and alcohol — received £71,111 in taxpayer-funded assistance. His cousin, Hussain, who was sentenced to 30 years for offenses including arranging for a girl to perform sex acts for strangers on a dirty mattress, was granted nearly £80,000.
GB News highlighted the irony of these figures, noting that the abuse began shortly after Ali arrived in Britain from Pakistan. The report emphasizes that the £149,888 total currently accounted for — roughly $200,000 — may only be the beginning; the Legal Aid Agency indicated that they are still awaiting further claims from legal representatives, suggesting the final cost to the public will likely climb higher.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨BREAKING: The British government are paying money to pakistani grooming gang rapists for legal fees.
This is literally INSANE. <a href="https://t.co/xfur6ao4VP">pic.twitter.com/xfur6ao4VP</a>
&mdash; God Save Great Britain (@GSGB01) <a href="https://twitter.com/GSGB01/status/2041485473235800138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JAILED: Cousins gang rape children. 
Two men get 30 &amp; 28 years for 1990s grooming and rape of children.
Manzorr Hussain: 7 rapes, 6 indecent assaults. Imtiaz Ali: 5 rapes, indecent assaults.
They groomed victims with alcohol, drugs, money and lifts before raping them.
-… <a href="https://t.co/8Di21Y1N5x">pic.twitter.com/8Di21Y1N5x</a>
&mdash; Imtiaz Mahmood (@ImtiazMadmood) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/2021958722394972573?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 12, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
While the legal aid system is designed to ensure a fair trial, the revelation that such vast sums were used to defend men who showed &#8220;no remorse&#8221; for &#8220;systematically abusing children&#8221; has drawn sharp criticism. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/two-men-jailed-58-years-sexually-abusing-five-girls-bury#:~:text=Both%20defendants%20were%20adult%20men,to%20do%20what%20they%20wanted.">described</a> the case as one of the most appalling examples of organized child sexual exploitation, involving crimes committed between 1996 and 1999.
The CPS and Greater Manchester Police spent years meticulously building a case that finally brought the cousins to justice decades after their crimes. Prosecutors praised the bravery of the victims, who carried the trauma of the abuse for over twenty years.
However, for many viewers of the GB News report, the sense of justice provided by the long prison sentences is tempered by the news that the British public was forced to subsidize the legal defense of such heinous predators.

Justice is blind statue symbolizing law and legal system with United Kingdom of Great Britain nad Northern Ireland flag in the background.

Taxpayers Funded Defense For Muslim-Linked Child Predators — And Bill Isn’t Done Climbing

Child Sex Abuse

Crime

Great Britain

Muslim

World

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mks-ep-1945-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
A huge proportion of babies born in the United States are now born to foreign nationals who are cheating the immigration system. 
Can we acknowledge this whole “anchor baby” thing is a problem? I should hope so but I’m not totally sure that we can.
The whole concept of birthright citizenship comes from the British. The idea stems from a distinction between jus soli — the right-of-the-soil — and jus sanguinis — the right-of-blood. The notion that you get your citizenship from the blood of your parents versus receiving citizenship because you were born on certain soil.
Well, we get the idea from English common law. And guess what? The English — the Brits — have not had jus soli, right-of-the-soil birthright citizenship, since 1983. So even they recognized there’s a problem.
Can we too recognize that there’s a problem here?
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mks-ep-1945-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-1054531 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Western Lensman gives some very good background on this topic on X, posting a clip about pregnant mothers from Turkey giving birth in the United States. Here&#8217;s the clip:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
2020. Turkish anchor baby ring found operating in Long Island, NY — mothers got taxpayer funded healthcare.
This is insane:
&#8220;Prosecutors say more than 100 pregnant women from Turkey came here to give birth, so their children were instantly granted U.S. citizenship.&#8221;… <a href="https://t.co/mjxyihjeO2">https://t.co/mjxyihjeO2</a> <a href="https://t.co/QcWl50rEXd">pic.twitter.com/QcWl50rEXd</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/2039716413225550306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: WesternLensman/X.com
There are “anchor baby” operations — what amount to birth tourism schemes — that have been operating in this country for years. Prosecutors described a case on Long Island where more than 100 pregnant women from Turkey came to the U.S. to give birth so their children would automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
<blockquote>The defendants fraudulently facilitated the births in the United States of approximately 119 Turkish children. And those children now hold birthright U.S. citizenship.</blockquote>
Officials alleged the scheme was openly advertised abroad — essentially marketing the idea: if you want your child to be born in the United States and become an American citizen, this is how you do it.
This is a business. This is an industry.
You see versions of this in other countries too — there were similar cases involving Chinese birth tourism operations in the past.
So, again I ask, can we acknowledge that this is a problem?
Yes.
Where does the problem derive from? It derives from what is now an outmoded conception from English common law — so much so that the English themselves moved away from it — and from interpretations of the 14th Amendment that have been expanded far beyond what some argue was originally intended.
So what’s the solution?
The solution, very obviously, would be to place limits on how birthright citizenship is applied. You don’t necessarily have to eliminate it entirely — you could define it more narrowly. Some argue that even within the text of the 14th Amendment there are grounds for interpretation about who qualifies, since the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has historically been debated.
That’s the argument.
And the broader point is this: if a country cannot define who is and is not a citizen, then it raises serious questions about sovereignty and governance.
That’s why this debate keeps coming up.

New parents watching babies in hospital nursery

‘Anchor Baby’ Schemes Are Thriving And The System Making It Possible Is Still Untouched

14th Amendment

babies

birthright citizenship

citizenship

Michael Knowles

Pregnancy

Turkey

For years, Britain has prided itself on avoiding America’s bitter abortion wars. That pride came from a “settled” law that the public took as a “pragmatic compromise.” But a recent vote in Parliament has shattered that illusion, generating the first national debate in the United Kingdom on the issue in almost 60 years.
Since 1967, abortion has been permitted in Britain for any reason up to 24 weeks (almost 6 months) — already far later than in most of Europe — with complete allowance up to birth in cases involving serious risk to the mother’s life or health, or fetal disability.
But last week, Britain’s House of Lords backed a change that decriminalizes abortion outside the existing legal framework. In plain terms, while abortions carried out through the NHS will still operate within a regulated general 24-week limit, no laws will exist to deter women from ending their pregnancies outside that system — including at full term, for any reason whatsoever.
This isn’t hypothetical. It has already happened.
In 2010, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675">Sarah Catt,</a> 35, from North Yorkshire, aborted her baby at 39 weeks — days before her due date. She didn’t carry out this abortion because of any medical crisis. She and her baby were perfectly healthy. Rather, she had the abortion because she was having an affair, and didn’t want her partner to find out.
Sarah was prosecuted under the law for killing her viable, late-term baby, but the changes pushed through by politicians means she will be fully pardoned — as if her actions were never immoral.
These cases are rare. But they matter, because they expose the very boundary the law once enforced — and what can happen when that boundary disappears.
The activism in support of the recent vote to change the law gained momentum in the past few years due to a small increase in the number of women investigated for potentially illegal abortions, following the introduction of pills-by-mail or &#8220;pills-by-post.&#8221; This Covid-era scheme enabled women under ten weeks pregnant to order abortion pills by phone, and take them with no in-person examination or medical supervision.
Following the pandemic, the government made the scheme permanent — despite evidence that it opened women’s health up to far greater risk. Around 20 women <a href="https://righttolife.org.uk/news/over-10000-women-needed-hospital-treatment-after-using-abortion-pills">per day</a> in 2020 had to be admitted to the hospital after taking the pills alone at home. Ambulance dispatches and emergency calls responding to abortion pill concerns <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/ambulance-dispatches-and-999-calls-responding-to-abortion-pill-concerns-have-risen-by-64-since-2019-gb-news-investigation/359311">rose by 64%</a> following the scheme’s introduction.
Without scans or examinations, ectopic pregnancies requiring urgent medical care are missed; and crucially, gestational ages are not confirmed. Relying on women to self-report how far along their pregnancy carries a minefield of risks.
The court case of Carla Foster exposed the danger of this approach. Carla, 44, obtained abortion pills after telling a provider she was less than ten weeks pregnant. In reality, she was around 34 weeks along. She took the pills at home to end the life of her fully-developed baby in utero, went into labour, and delivered a stillborn daughter, whom she later named &#8220;Lily.&#8221;
Lily was viable, healthy and pain-capable. She could have survived if simply allowed to be delivered alive. Foster later described being “haunted” by the experience. Nobody wants to see women go through this trauma; nobody wants to see developed babies, capable of survival, being killed at this late stage. The pills-by-post scheme should have been scrapped to prevent this happening again. Instead, parliamentarians removed the legal deterrents that prevent more women from following in Carla’s footsteps.
Across most of the continent, abortion on general grounds is limited to the first trimester — typically between 12 and 15 weeks. Britain’s 24-week limit is already by far one of the most permissive. Stripping away the legal enforcement of that limit is not a minor adjustment, but a radical departure.
Perhaps most striking is how out of step this is with public opinion. While most Britons support legal abortion in some circumstances, <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2183929/abortion-birth-voted-lords-legalised-infanticide">less than</a> 1% support abortion up to birth for any reason. 
In other words, this is not the result of overwhelming democratic demand. It is a top-down redefinition of moral boundaries — one that the public has barely begun to grapple with.
Even in Britain’s typically muted political landscape, alarm bells are starting to ring. Senior figures, from Reform MP Suella Braverman to Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, have broken the long-standing bipartisan reluctance to engage on this issue, warning that removing legal guardrails up to birth goes too far. In a country that has spent decades avoiding this debate, that shift alone is telling.
The British parliament has sent a signal that no abortion, no matter the reason, can ever be judged as immoral. The British public will now have to decide if they agree — or if it’s time to finally reopen the conversation, and look into how our laws can be better structured to support both mothers and their babies to thrive.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.

UK Parliament Ahead of 2025 Budget

Could Full-Term Abortion Become Reality In America? The Debate Just Shifted.

Abortion

Abortion Drug

Leftists

Parliament

United Kingdom

Women

Radical leftist British MP Zarah Sultana is escalating her campaign against the Western alliance, demanding on Monday that United Kingdom authorities “kick U.S. troops off U.K. bases” and withdraw immediately from NATO.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Kick US troops off UK bases.
&mdash; Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) <a href="https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/2033573226647892171?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The former Labour MP, who has become a leading figure in the fringe &#8220;Your Party&#8221; movement, took to X to rail against the relationship. Her latest outburst follows at least one inflammatory post in which she accused the United States and Israel of waging an “illegal war on Iran.”
“The UK must immediately end its complicity in this illegal war: no US use of UK bases, no arms sales, no surveillance support, no military cooperation,” Sultana wrote. In a jab at the British government’s alignment with Washington, she added, “The British public don’t want to be America’s poodle anymore.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Since the US and Israel began their illegal war on Iran, over 1,300 Iranians have been killed and nearly a third are children.
At least 20 schools and 10 hospitals have been targeted. These are grave war crimes.
In Lebanon, over 600 people have been killed including 86…
&mdash; Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) <a href="https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/2031859855028375716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sultana’s rhetoric has become increasingly harsh as she targets the cornerstone of Western security. On March 5, she took aim at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dismissing any hope of reforming the alliance. “Can NATO be ‘reformed from within’? No,” Sultana declared. “It’s an imperialist war machine. We must leave NATO immediately. No ifs, no buts.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Can NATO be “reformed from within”? No. 
Even Mark Rutte openly admits that it’s an imperialist war machine.
We must leave NATO immediately. No ifs, no buts. <a href="https://t.co/1YJBWSFhPX">https://t.co/1YJBWSFhPX</a>
&mdash; Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) <a href="https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/2029716324763504793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The MP’s hostility toward the West is not limited to military alliances. She has frequently directed her ire at President Donald Trump, recently accusing his administration of targeting Cuba with “expansionist” policies.
“Cuba is next on Trump’s expansionist hit-list,” she wrote on X. “The only ‘threat’ it poses is existing as a sovereign state that refuses to bow to US imperialism. Blocking all fuel supplies is collective punishment and a war crime. It must be opposed. Hands off Cuba! Hands off Latin America!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Cuba is next on Trump’s expansionist hit-list.
The only “threat” it poses is existing as a sovereign state that refuses to bow to US imperialism.
Blocking all fuel supplies is collective punishment and a war crime. It must be opposed.
Hands off Cuba! Hands off Latin America! <a href="https://t.co/22dkUEDiam">https://t.co/22dkUEDiam</a>
&mdash; Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) <a href="https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/2017398907135729953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In January, she characterized a U.S.-led reconstruction board for Gaza as a “colonial Board of Occupation,” concluding her remarks with the cry for Israel’s extermination, “From the river to the sea.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Trump &#39;s so-called “Board of Peace” for Gaza is a colonial Board of Occupation, run by war criminals and profiteers.
Reconstruction will cost at least $70 billion. Israel, the US and every complicit state must pay for the genocidal destruction they enabled.
We will continue to…
&mdash; Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) <a href="https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/2013373906359291907?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
While Sultana focuses on dismantling Western defense, critics say she is simultaneously working to obscure uncomfortable truths at home. In late 2025, she faced a firestorm of criticism for attacking Migration Minister Mike Tapp. After Tapp suggested that an inquiry into grooming gangs should examine the “Pakistani-Muslim nature” of the perpetrators to identify cultural links to the abuse, Sultana branded him a “Temu Enoch Powell” and accused him of using a “fascist playbook,” as GB News <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/politics/grooming-gangs-inquiry-ex-tory-mp-blasts-radical-left-row-mike-tapp?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a>.
Former Conservative MP Alexander Stafford slammed Sultana’s attempts to shut down the discussion, noting that independent reports have repeatedly highlighted the overrepresentation of certain minority groups in these horrific abuse cases.
“They’re basically denying the facts,” Stafford told GB News, accusing Sultana and other far-Left figures of trying to “minimize the impact” on victims. “By diminishing and moving eyes away from the root cause &#8230; you’re actually going to make it more likely for issues like this to happen again.”
Sultana’s history of radicalism is well-documented. As a student, she posted social media comments expressing a desire to see Western leaders like Tony Blair and George W. Bush &#8220;meet their creator.&#8221; In 2015, Sultana <a href="https://www.easterneye.biz/labours-zarah-sultana-apologises-for-celebrate-deaths-post/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">wrote</a>, “Try and stop me when the likes of Blair, Netanyahu and Bush die,” adding in another post, “The sooner they meet their creator the better. The concepts of justice and accountability don’t truly exist in this life. Only in the next.”
Today, as a sitting MP, she has remained unapologetic, as she <a href="https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/zarah-sultana-declares-herself-to-be-a-loud-and-proud-anti-zionist/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">said</a> in 2025: “I say it loudly and proudly: I’m an anti-Zionist. Print that.”

National March For Palestine And Counter Protest Held In Central London

Anti-West British MP Zarah Sultana Demands U.K. Expel U.S. Troops

Donald Trump

Global Politics

Iran

Muslims

When Islamists on horseback can intimidate and chase down anti-regime protesters on British streets without consequence, it raises a question no modern Briton ever expected to ask: is this still a country confident enough to protect dissent?
That is the question behind the startling <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/67f5fe6bb82cd78e3cd235719ccff719148d83a7?u=11850803">suggestion</a> from U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers to the Telegraph — Britons may soon be justified in seeking asylum in America. She was not being casually provocative for effect. She was serious — and each passing day strengthens her case.
With war now raging between the United States, Israel, and Iran, Britain is confronting a humiliating question: what does it say about our country when anti-Ayatollah Iranians can be harassed on British streets while police stand idly by? In Manchester, rival demonstrations erupted after the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and reports circulated — alongside <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/da2384697c47993ad15de8bdc876420559a23a03?u=11850803">widely shared footage</a> — that pro-regime Islamists on horseback were intimidating and chasing away Iranians near the Islamic Centre.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
UK: Pro-regime Iranian enforcers chased anti-Ayatollah Iranians near the Islamic Centre in Manchester. The police declined to intervene. <a href="https://t.co/HNkOOLH75p">pic.twitter.com/HNkOOLH75p</a>
— @amuse (@amuse) <a href="https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2030231214171255001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @amuse/X.com
To the shock of bystanders, police made no arrests. The astounded man filming the giant steeds and their bearded Islamic riders pleaded with police to know why the men weren’t being “nicked” (that’s arrested, in Northern parlance). “They’ve just chased people with their ‘orses!” he shouts; his broad Manchester accent starkly at odds with the Middle Eastern politics playing out on his streets.
“What are we supposed to do?” shrugs the short, young police officer, “Pull him off his horse?”
“Yes!” exclaimed the terrified onlooker.
This is the state of affairs in Britain: if your safety, social norms, or free speech are being compromised by Islamic agitators, the police stand by. Our accidental documentary-maker behind the cell phone summed it up nicely, “If he had a Union Jack on, he’d be off the horse.” He’s right.
Over the past thirty years, the United Kingdom has <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/c4330ffdf28b092bd3a9ded3c05868fc52d57f3f?u=11850803">quietly</a> redefined the social contract that underpinned British society. But even those of us who have watched a stream of Trojan horses sneak in cultural change didn’t foresee it morphing into actual horses on our streets.
And as Rogers correctly identifies, it is all underpinned by the demise of free speech. This has fallen off a cliff: not through dramatic constitutional rupture, but via bureaucratic growth under both Left and Right-wing governments. Millions of Brits, many of whom are my viewers on GB News, are relieved that the Trump Administration has been ringing the alarm bell on our behalf.
A growing number of ordinary citizens are being swept into the criminal justice system for social media posts, venting frustration on WhatsApp groups, and even uttering <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/c2bceac0258a441bd433e922797e28875d0bf888?u=11850803">unkind</a> words at protests. There were more than 12,000 <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/62470ed4abde1015105311facb04948e43d91009?u=11850803">arrests</a> in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 — laws that criminalize posting messages deemed &#8220;grossly offensive,&#8221; &#8220;indecent, obscene,&#8221; or causing &#8220;annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.&#8221;
That&#8217;s roughly 33 arrests <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/a979482f8ee61bcacaa182549ce7da9ecb858cf5?u=11850803">per day</a> in a country where shoplifting is practically decriminalized, and less than 5% of home burglaries are solved.
While the laws curtailing speech were originally intended to deal with serious threats and targeted harassment, in practice, they can be applied far more broadly. Civil liberties groups <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/1cf9edb8541540b412d62c86505cf0d8ee16552f?u=11850803">argue</a> that the vagueness of what constitutes &#8220;offensive&#8221; content allows authorities to monitor or detain people for expressing controversial political opinions, satire, or clumsy humor.
Things became more extreme with the 2023 Online Safety Act, one of the most significant legal changes of the decade, granting the communications regulator (Ofcom) wide authority to compel platforms to remove content. It also creates new criminal offenses for incidents of &#8220;false and threatening communications.&#8221; But the act&#8217;s overly broad, subjective definitions and heavy penalties will lead to the censorship of lawful and harmless speech by tech firms trying to avoid multi-million dollar fines. Hundreds of people have already been <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/8bcf7660c7ddc8842b69fe45491a3fd9daa62bc6?u=11850803">charged</a> under the new regime for &#8220;illegal fake news&#8221; and &#8220;threatening communications,&#8221; with dozens convicted just months after it came into force.
Rogers is right to observe that this environment has produced something historically novel: a liberal democracy in which citizens increasingly self-censor not out of politeness, but out of fear.
Comedy writer Graham Linehan was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/irish-comedian-recounts-shocking-arrest-over-anti-trans-social-media-posts">arrested</a> last September at London&#8217;s Heathrow Airport after traveling from America, where he had <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/ed17a91d8bdab33570b575f3018e8c7d96f65a97?u=11850803">posted</a> on X about protecting women&#8217;s spaces from trans-identified males.
2023 also saw the arrival of enforcement <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/e1d16dc331f341b4db26779377550dfa0d97d162?u=11850803">against</a> &#8220;non-crime hate incidents,&#8221; a uniquely British invention that allowed police to record speech as hateful even when no law had been broken. The message is unmistakable: speech is tolerated only so long as it causes no discomfort to those empowered to define harm.
Contrast this with the American approach Rogers implicitly praises — the First Amendment as the cultural spine of American life. It protects speech precisely because it is offensive, destabilizing, or unpopular. American courts do not ask whether speech might cause emotional unease; they ask whether the state has any business interfering at all.
Critics will argue that Britain&#8217;s model is merely more &#8220;civilized&#8221; and that Americans fetishize absolutism. But balance presumes a neutral arbiter, and Britain no longer has one. When regulators, universities, employers, and police all share the same ideological assumptions, moderation becomes enforcement by another name.
What Rogers understands — and what many in Britain still resist — is that free speech is not primarily about manners: it is about power and control. Once the power to determine acceptable opinion shifts decisively to institutions, citizens become subjects in all but name. You may still speak, but only at your own risk.
This is why talk of asylum, literal or not, resonates deeply.
Asylum is sought not only when bombs fall, but when rights erode so completely that dissent becomes untenable. We are not quite there yet — but the trajectory is headed nowhere good. How could it? The British government is currently <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/93424203e35ae34cb4276d0c03f8932f0045fee0?u=11850803">proposing</a> the abolition of jury trials for all but the most heinous crimes.
America&#8217;s free-speech culture survives not because Americans are uniquely virtuous or diplomatic but because their system assumes fallibility — of governments, of majorities, of individual morality. Britain, by contrast, increasingly assumes moral consensus and builds enforcement mechanisms around it.
Sarah Rogers has done the UK a service by saying the quiet part aloud. If Britain wishes to remain a nation of free speakers rather than shy whisperers, it must relearn a lesson America never forgot: the price of liberty is not silence, but tolerance of speech we would rather not hear.
* * *
Bev Turner is a host of &#8220;The Late Show Live&#8221; for Great Britain&#8217;s GBNews, based out of Washington, D.C. Follow her on X <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/6a872d0bbc65de7ea63572b544b18a7c29887860?u=11850803">@BeverleyTurner</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Anti-migrant Hotel Protest And Counter-Protests Take Place In Newcastle

Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud About Britain’s Free Speech Crisis

Free Speech

Manchester

Opinion

When President Trump addresses the nation tonight, Jimmy Lai’s daughter, Claire Lai, will sit in the chamber as a reminder that the Chinese Communist Party is still punishing dissidents who dared to believe in freedom. Earlier this month, we learned of the <a href="http://google.com/search?q=jimmy+lai+sentence&amp;sca_esv=190a96a9d156750b&amp;rlz=1CAGZLV_enUS889&amp;tbm=nws&amp;sxsrf=ANbL-n4Gq5fmGsUjNbcnkqRKkx3Ey-n_Pw:1771015882615&amp;ei=yo6PafujJYSlqtsPu-XyiQc&amp;start=10&amp;sa=N&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj7sMykrNeSAxWEkmoFHbuyPHEQ8NMDegQIBhAW&amp;biw=1536&amp;bih=695&amp;dpr=1.25">near-life sentence</a> handed down to the Hong Kong democracy advocate. But Lai is not merely a symbol of Beijing’s repression. He is a British citizen. And if it takes an American president to elevate his cause before the world, it raises an uncomfortable question for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: what, exactly, is British citizenship worth?
Jimmy Lai’s life reads like a true rags-to-riches story. Born in mainland China, a 12-year-old Lai traveled by boat to what at the time was British Hong Kong with no money to his name. Finding work in the garment industry, Lai climbed his way up from the factory floor to achieve billionaire status. He could have rested on his laurels and gone quietly into retirement, but that is not who Jimmy Lai is.
Lai recognizes that his rise is thanks to the rights and freedoms Hong Kongers grew accustomed to, thanks to years as a British colony. Promising decades of autonomy and freedom under the handover, the CCP gradually whittled down the freedoms enjoyed in the city. Jimmy Lai refused to take these encroachments lying down, engaging in memorials of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and publishing pro-democracy content in the Apple Daily, the newspaper he founded. Therefore, it was no shock that Lai incurred the wrath of the CCP in the form of the National Security Law (NSL), under which he was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/hong-kong-media-tycoon-jimmy-lai-arrested-over-alleged-foreign-collusion#:~:text=%E2%80%9CToday%27s%20police%20action%20upends%20those,in%20protest%20against%20his%20arrest." target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested</a> in 2020 for allegedly colluding with foreign forces.
Enter Keir Starmer, the British prime minister. While Starmer’s government has voiced opposition to Lai’s imprisonment, it has thus far been unsuccessful in securing Lai&#8217;s release. So why is the conviction of a Chinese citizen the business of Starmer or Great Britain in general? After all, a spokesman for the Chinese government <a href="https://www.bastillepost.com/global/article/5598459-jimmy-lai-should-be-severely-punished-by-law-spokesman">denounced</a> criticism of Lai’s conviction as interference in an internal affair. However, there are several reasons why this issue matters to the British Government.
First, Hong Kong is not just a former British colony — it is a city in which Britain has treaty obligations. As a signatory to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the UK is responsible for ensuring that China fulfills its promise to allow autonomy in Hong Kong. For Jimmy Lai specifically, he is a British passport holder and therefore a British citizen. Keir Starmer is as responsible for Jimmy Lai’s safety as he is for any other British citizen unjustly detained abroad.
Jimmy Lai is not the only British citizen being held in a foreign prison. Estimates are that there are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/24/its-about-political-will-is-the-foreign-office-failing-britons-detained-abroad">thousands of Brits</a> detained or arrested in foreign countries. Jagtar Singh Johal has been imprisoned in India since 2017 after he confessed to involvement in a murder after police tortured a confession out of him. Every day that Jimmy Lai, Jagtar Singh Johal, and many others sit in prison is a day that Starmer is failing his citizenry.
What can Starmer do to help people like Jimmy Lai? For starters, he can stop treating the Chinese government like a friendly nation. The Jimmy Lai conviction is one of many examples where Starmer has been soft on China. His recent visit to Beijing <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2j04lk83zo">focused</a> on trade and tourism, but Starmer claims that he <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15543421/Keir-Starmer-accused-monumental-diplomatic-failure-China-jails.html">raised</a> the issue of Lai’s release when he was in China. This casual approach isn’t going to cut it. Unjust imprisonment is not some tertiary issue in diplomacy. What good are reduced tariffs on whiskey if British citizens aren’t safe when they travel to China?
If Keir Starmer wants to free Jimmy Lai and the other dissidents in Hong Kong, he needs to get tough on the Chinese government. First, trade negotiations need to stop until Lai is released from prison. The UK is failing its obligations to Hong Kong; now is the time to change course. Second, Starmer needs to shut down the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/world/europe/chinese-embassy-london-starmer.html">Chinese mega-embassy</a> project in London. Not only does the mega-embassy put critical communication cables at risk, but its construction will also allow the CCP to expand the transnational repression of other Hong Kong democracy advocates living in London. If Britain can’t protect its citizens abroad, the very least it can do is protect them on British territory.
Keir Starmer’s tenure at 10 Downing Street has been a disaster for a <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-epstein-files-threaten-to-topple-keir-starmers-labour-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">variety of reasons</a>, but his handling of the Jimmy Lai arrest only adds fuel to the fire. While Starmer’s days as PM might be limited, he can right this wrong if he acts quickly. By securing Jimmy Lai&#8217;s freedom, Keir Starmer will establish Britain’s diplomatic influence and potentially serve as a deterrent to other regimes hoping to illegally detain British citizens.
* * *
<a href="https://www.joinyv.org/talent/matthew-cookson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matt Cookson</a> is an alumnus of the Young Voices Contributor Program and was a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in the Mises Institute, Real Clear Politics, the National Interest, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @<a href="https://x.com/MattCookson95" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MattCookson95</a> and Substack @<a href="https://substack.com/@thewaythecookiecrumbles?utm_source=user-menu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">thewaythecookiecrumbles</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Activists In L.A. Rally Outside Chinese Consulate For Imprisoned Hong Kong Media Entrepreneur Jimmy Lai

As Jimmy Lai’s Daughter Attends Trump’s Address, Britain Faces An Uncomfortable Question

China

England

Hong Kong

Jimmy Lai

Keir Starmer

Prison

State of the Union

President Donald Trump tied disgraced former British royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein during a 2015 interview, advising reporters to question &#8220;Prince Andrew&#8221; if they wanted to know what went on at Epstein&#8217;s notorious private island.
Trump, who was asked to comment on Epstein, said at the time that it was clear the disgraced financier had &#8220;a problem&#8221; — and that Andrew, who has since been stripped of his royal title and status, was in a position to know more about Epstein&#8217;s behaviors than most.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 FLASHBACK: President Trump calling out Prince Andrew 11 years ago!
<a href="https://t.co/KCrHSHvy33">pic.twitter.com/KCrHSHvy33</a>
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2024484363950248448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You raised the question of Jeffrey Epstein in your remarks about her — in the Q &amp; A with Sean,&#8221; a reporter said.
&#8220;Well, I think he’s got a problem,&#8221; Trump replied. &#8220;I mean, I’m hearing —&#8221;
&#8220;What do you think the problem will be?&#8221; the reporter pressed.
&#8220;I don’t know, but that island was really a cesspool,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;There’s no question about it, just ask Prince Andrew. He’ll tell you about it. The island was an absolute cesspool.&#8221;
Within the next few years, Epstein became the subject of a federal investigation into child-sex trafficking and was ultimately arrested and jailed in New York City. The investigation dug into Epstein&#8217;s powerful connections, in addition to a previous sweetheart plea deal Epstein had secured in Florida in 2008 — which allowed him to plead to lesser state offenses and avoid federal sex trafficking charges.
According to a 2019 ruling, however, the plea deal was a violation of the Crime Victims&#8217; Rights Act because the victims were not informed when it was struck.
Epstein died that same year by suicide in a jail cell in New York City&#8217;s Metropolitan Correctional Center, but the investigation into his network and powerful connections continued. His longtime partner Ghislaine Maxwell was tried and convicted of sex trafficking.
Mountbatten-Windsor, in the years that followed, was stripped of his titles and royal duties. And on the morning of his 66th birthday — February 19, 2026 — he was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-prince-andrew-arrested-over-epstein-files-faces-life-in-prison">arrested</a> by British law enforcement officers who accused him of misconduct while serving in public office in connection with his ties to Epstein. Reports suggest that he could face life in prison, if convicted.
King Charles issued a rare public statement following the arrest, saying, &#8220;Let me state clearly: the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.&#8221;
President Trump also addressed Mountbatten-Windsor&#8217;s arrest, saying that it was a horrible thing for the royal family as a whole.
Saying that the document releases thus far have &#8220;totally exonerated&#8221; him, Trump made it clear that he felt bad for Britain&#8217;s King Charles — a &#8220;fantastic man&#8221; — to have to deal with the fallout of Andrew&#8217;s ties to Epstein.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Trump on Prince Andrew arrest &#8211; It’s a shame <a href="https://t.co/sDMnBTOL46">pic.twitter.com/sDMnBTOL46</a>
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) <a href="https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/2024576309465125146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

THROWBACK THURSDAY: Watch Trump Toss Prince Andrew Under Epstein Bus 11 Years Ago

Epstein Files

Jeffrey Epstein

Politics

Prince Andrew

Sex Trafficking

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure after acknowledging that he knew of ties between his former U.S. Ambassador, Lord Peter Mandelson, and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before appointing Mandelson to the post.
Starmer’s admission has triggered backlash from across the British political spectrum, forced a partial reversal on the release of government documents, and raised fresh questions about the vetting process behind one of the United Kingdom’s most sensitive diplomatic appointments.
At Prime Minister’s Questions this week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Starmer on whether official security vetting had flagged Mandelson’s continued association with Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor. “Yes it did,” Starmer replied, confirming that the relationship had been reviewed and that “various questions were put to him” during the appointment process.
Starmer, however, claimed he was unaware of what he described as the “sheer depth and the extent” of Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, accusing the former Labour power broker of lying repeatedly about the relationship. Starmer told Parliament, “He lied about that to everyone for years. When the new information came to light, I sacked him.&#8221;
Mandelson, a political appointee rather than a career diplomat, was removed from his role as ambassador to Washington in September following the release of new material tied to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Epstein files. Those documents appear to show Mandelson sharing potentially market-sensitive information with Epstein during the 2008 financial crisis, when Mandelson was serving as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government.
The relationship between Mandelson and Epstein, including Mandelson’s stays at Epstein’s residences after the conviction, had been reported publicly prior to Mandelson’s 2024 appointment. Starmer acknowledged that some of those details were known to Downing Street and reviewed during due diligence and security vetting.
“What was not known was the depth and extent,” Starmer repeated.
The controversy has escalated beyond partisan criticism, with Labour MPs, led by former deputy leader Angela Rayner, pushing back against Starmer’s initial plan to allow the Cabinet Secretary to determine which appointment documents could be withheld on national security grounds.
Under pressure from his own party, Starmer agreed instead to allow Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to oversee decisions on what material can be released, a move widely seen as an attempt to calm the waters amid growing unrest on Labour’s back benches.
The Conservative Party has tabled a “humble address” motion in the House of Commons, a rarely used parliamentary tactic designed to compel the government to release internal documents. The motion seeks disclosure of vetting materials and communications involving Mandelson and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, a close Mandelson ally who remains under scrutiny.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has also called for a public inquiry, pressing Starmer on whether he considered Epstein’s victims when appointing Mandelson to such a senior role.
Lord Mandelson has resigned from the Labour Party and stepped down from the House of Lords. Starmer has announced plans to introduce legislation to prevent Mandelson from retaining his peerage title and confirmed that Mandelson has been stripped of his status as a Privy Counsellor with the consent of King Charles.
Mandelson has reportedly argued that he sought Epstein’s financial expertise in what he believed to be the national interest. Starmer, however, offered an unusually blunt condemnation of his former ally, saying, “Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”
Documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment are expected to be released later today, with material referred to police as part of an ongoing investigation.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer Gives Speech On Plan To Cut NHS Waiting Times

Keir Starmer In Hot Seat After Admitting He Knew Appointee Was Close To Epstein

In 2026, Britain will hit three grim milestones.
First, it will see the number of deaths <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/resolution-foundation-deaths-births-economy-b2894591.html">exceed</a> the number of births for the first time in modern history.
Second, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/15/abortions-at-record-high-in-over-35s-because-babies-are-too/">a third</a> of the babies conceived will be aborted.
Third, the number of migrants in its population (10.9 million) will roughly equate to the total number of children aborted (10.7 million) since the procedure became legalized in 1968.
In other words, by ending unborn lives on an industrial scale, the native British population has created a demographic vacuum it now plugs with immigration, and in doing so, has brought itself to the brink of quiet obliteration.
For Brits, the question of abortion is no longer only an ethical one. A nation that does not reproduce itself must import its future. That is not a moral judgment on immigrants, but a mathematical reality. A critical shortage of young people means a critical shortage of recruits for the armed forces, workers in critical industries, and taxpayers to fund defense, healthcare, pensions, and other social services.
If it cannot “grow our own” workforce, it must import one from elsewhere.
Of course, relying on mass immigration to plug a demographic hole of our own making is not a neutral solution. It carries serious national security implications. As has been clear in recent years, weak, strained border controls, over-used and under pressure, give way to criminal gangs, swept in undetected alongside the key workers we need.
Yet while Right-wing politicians fall over themselves to condemn mass migration, hardly anyone in Westminster will risk breathing a word about the abortion crisis that has brought our nation to the point of requiring large-scale human importation. Meanwhile, Members of Parliament <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/europe/uk-abortion-law.html">recently voted</a> to exacerbate abortion culture by decriminalizing the procedure up to birth.
Britain is a prime example of why the abortion debate, though emotive and divisive, is worth having. Though some Americans may roll their eyes at the March for Life or the pro-life rhetoric being championed by Republicans, they’d do well to look overseas at a nation which has let abortion destroy them. 
The consequences of abortion, of course, are not only macro-economic. The loss of life alone is devastating, in the case of every child. Broadly, our collective failure to focus on family has left Brits lonelier and more depressed than ever. And as for those women who have undergone an abortion, physical complications, mental health struggles, and silent grief ripple through our healthcare system and society. &#8220;Pro-choice&#8221; psychology professor David Fergusson <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23553240/">published evidence</a> that women who have abortions are significantly more likely to suffer from anxiety, suicidal ideation, and drug and alcohol abuse. Pretending this is a “cost-free” procedure helps no-one.
What makes Britain’s situation especially tragic is that it was avoidable. Marriage &#8211; one of the greatest proximate predictors for adults to have children &#8211; is punished by the UK tax system, discouraging family formation and making it harder to depend on one salary. In the workplace, motherhood is treated as a liability. Poor maternity leave provision and the constant push of government-sponsored “free childcare” pushes women who do have kids back into taxable desk jobs, rather than encouraging them to invest in time at home with their children. All the while, the culture champions the idea that babies are inconvenient competitors to the luxuries of modern life. Abortion is the far cheaper, easier policy option in many ways. But in the long-term, it leads to a nation collapsing from within.
This is why abortion is no longer just a moral issue, but one of national survival. A society cannot abort a third of its future generation and expect to remain intact. Britain is not simply declining, but aborting itself out of existence. America should take note, and continue to fight for a culture supportive of bringing babies into the world. Once a culture decides children are optional, the future becomes optional too.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

British flag burning

Britain Is Aborting Itself To Death

Children

mass migration

Pro-Life Movement

Pictures of bikini-clad women have been known to cause strain in marriages. But could skimpy swimsuits trigger a threat to the United States&#8217; and Great Britain&#8217;s “special relationship?&#8221;
In recent weeks, young women have been targeted on X by individuals using Grok’s AI technology to manipulate their image without their consent. I, myself, was a victim in this scandal: an anonymous user replied to a perfectly normal post I had written about puberty blockers and instructed X’s AI to generate a sexualized deepfake of me: “put her in a micro-bikini, on her knees, knees out, tongue out.”
I have never taken, shared, or consented to anything remotely like that. The ability of a stranger to weaponize my face and turn it into public pornography is a profound violation. It strips you of your dignity, your identity, and your sense of personal control in a way few things can.
So, I reported it. And X acted: fast. The comment was removed, the image was deleted, and the account responsible was, as far as I can tell, permanently suspended. Soon after, X restricted Grok’s image-generation features for non-subscribers, effectively shutting down the anonymous abuse that had driven most of this trend. Within days, the phenomenon had largely disappeared.
It was a negative experience, but it was handled. The platform corrected course. We moved on.
Or at least, most of us did. The British government did not.
Instead, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has chosen to escalate the incident into something far bigger: floating the possibility of <a href="https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/uk-x-ban-grok-ai-elon-musk/">banning X entirely</a> in the United Kingdom. This has triggered an extraordinary diplomatic row with the United States, whose State Department has now openly warned Britain that such a move could provoke retaliation.
State Department spokesmen have <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-state-department-threaten-uk-probe-elon-musk-x-grok/">made clear</a> that Washington would view such a ban as an unjustified attack on freedom of speech, behavior more typical of an authoritarian state than a Western democracy. Some American officials have even hinted at travel restrictions or legal pressure against British officials involved in enforcement.
That kind of terse language is almost unheard of between Britain and America. But it didn’t come out of nowhere. Tensions have been building over the last few years as the United Kingdom persistently flouts respect for free expression. Mothers are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o">jailed</a> for months on end for long-since deleted tweets. Christians are <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/02/14/adam-smith-connor-abortion-campaigner-jd-vance/">convicted</a> for praying silently near abortion facilities. The examples are racking up at an extraordinary pace.
The recent government targeting of X is ostensibly meant to prevent women and children from porn-related crime. But if ministers were genuinely driven by concern for female dignity and child safety, X would be nowhere near the top of their list.
Pornhub, one of the largest pornography platforms in the world, has a documented history of hosting child sexual abuse material, rape videos, and non-consensual content. In 2025, American regulators <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-takes-action-against-operators-pornhub-other-pornographic-sites-deceiving-users-about-efforts">concluded</a> that Pornhub&#8217;s parent company had misled the public about safeguards and failed to prevent the re-uploading of illegal material.
And yet Pornhub remains accessible in Britain. No threats or bans from the government. Just quiet assurances about age verification and “compliance.”
The same is true of other AI platforms. Gemini, ChatGPT, and countless image-generation tools have all faced cases where non-consensual deepfakes were produced. None have been threatened with national expulsion. None have been treated as existential threats to public safety.
So, why X?
X is not primarily a sexual platform. It is a political one. It hosts journalists, dissidents, activists, and cultural critics. It is messy, chaotic, and often offensive — but it is also one of the last major spaces where unfiltered political disagreement still happens at scale.
That is why this fight has become transatlantic. The United States understands something the British government seems either unable or unwilling to admit: a wholesale ban on X would be a gross attempt to control and shut down public conversation, including views the government simply dislike.
If Starmer truly believes in protecting the vulnerable, his government should be relentlessly targeting the platforms that profit from sexual abuse and exploitation. Until that happens, the sudden ferocity directed at X will remain impossible to read as anything other than ideological.
And now, thanks to America’s spotlight, the world is watching.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Deep fake hoax and manipulation news titles on screen in hand 3d illustration

Someone Made AI Porn Of Me. Could That Kill America’s Relationship With Britain?

I Was Targeted By An AI Deepfake. Now My Country Wants To Ban X.

Artificial Intelligence

Deepfake

Pornhub

Pornography

Social Media

Twitter

It&#8217;s Christmas break, so it seems like an appropriate time <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-251222-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">to discuss</a> one of my favorite books: “The Screwtape Letters,” by C.S. Lewis.
The book is all at once a deep rumination on religion, a high comedy rooted in the hilarity of both humanity&#8217;s flaws and Satan&#8217;s foibles, a tragedy about the nature of death, and a tale of redemption and everlasting life.
It is a spectacularly good book.
When you read “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Screwtape-Letters-Deluxe-C-Lewis/dp/0063487764/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=hmHqX&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738%3Aamzn1.symc.050ea944-f1cf-4610-b462-3b604f2f4082&amp;pf_rd_p=048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738&amp;pf_rd_r=KNCVRDB5MGRR1B4K95QR&amp;pd_rd_wg=iizDa&amp;pd_rd_r=4e52d04f-0a0b-4d38-95e4-749c6da85b95&amp;ref_=pd_hp_d_btf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_id_hp_d">The Screwtape Letters</a>,” there are a lot of truly funny moments. Lewis himself said, though, “Of all my books there was only one I did not take pleasure in writing,” calling it ‘dry and gritty going.’ &#8220;At the time, I was thinking of objections to the Christian life and decided to put them in the form ‘That’s what the devil would say.’ But making goods ‘bad’ and bads ‘good’ gets to be fatiguing.”
The book is wildly entertaining because he is obviously writing in the voice of one of Satan&#8217;s minions. In Christian theology, Satan has a will of his own, and he&#8217;s rebelling against God, which makes him a really fascinating character.
Lewis opens the book with a couple of epigraphs, one by Martin Luther: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield the texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn,” and one by Sir Thomas More: “The devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.”
The book is written from the perspective of Screwtape as letters to his nephew, Wormwood. Wormwood has been given the on-the-ground task of convincing a young man away from his incipient Christianity and Screwtape’s job to advise Wormwood on the best way to procure the young man&#8217;s soul.
This gives Lewis extraordinary leeway to stick and move with Satan, to make fun, to mock, to play with the entire idea. And what emerges is a great work of literature.
There are a bunch of large-scale arguments that Lewis makes in “The Screwtape Letters.” The first one is that Satan&#8217;s best weapon is the “real world.”
That is correct.
If you talk to secular people, they&#8217;ll always say that the spiritual world and God are unreal. The real world is the material world. But then, when you ask them about what&#8217;s important to them, they&#8217;ll talk about their feelings, which, of course, are inherently unreal in the same way the spiritual world is unreal.
This is a point that Lewis makes: the definition of “real” is capacious and changing on a regular basis among secularists. Lewis believes that man&#8217;s draw to the divine can be rooted in reason, and that reason actually guides you toward something beyond yourself. It guides you toward the transcendent.
That&#8217;s an idea that I heartily agree with. I believe that the notion of free will and free choice in the universe guides you toward the idea that there must be something beyond us, that there&#8217;s a logic to the universe that guides you to the question of questions: Who is the Chief Logician, who made the rules?
<div id="attachment_1018735" style="width: 391px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Screwtape-Letters-Deluxe-C-Lewis/dp/0063487764/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=hmHqX&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738%3Aamzn1.symc.050ea944-f1cf-4610-b462-3b604f2f4082&amp;pf_rd_p=048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738&amp;pf_rd_r=KNCVRDB5MGRR1B4K95QR&amp;pd_rd_wg=iizDa&amp;pd_rd_r=4e52d04f-0a0b-4d38-95e4-749c6da85b95&amp;ref_=pd_hp_d_btf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_id_hp_d"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1018735" class="size-large wp-image-1018735" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-381x576.jpg" alt="Credit: HarperOne" width="381" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-381x576.jpg 381w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-199x300.jpg 199w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-768x1160.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_.jpg 993w" sizes=" (max-width: 381px) 100vw, 381px" /></a>Credit: HarperOne</div>
Lewis makes the same point, and then he says that the job of the secular materialist is to get you to focus on the thing-in-itself.
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it real life. Don&#8217;t let him ask what he means by real.</blockquote>
Thus, keep the person focused on the immediate and the now. There&#8217;s nothing that&#8217;s done this more than the internet age, where our attention spans have been reduced to the next 15 seconds. Sitting and ruminating on life leads you to higher ideas, and if you can prevent people from doing that sort of stuff, you end up with a very materialistic society.
So what exactly does reality mean? According to Screwtape,
<blockquote>People ought to be taught that in all experiences which can make them happier or better, only the physical facts are real, while the spiritual elements are subjective and in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them, the spiritual elements are the main reality, and to ignore them is to be an escapist.</blockquote>
The idea is that when you&#8217;re thinking about death, the only thing that is real is the death itself. You&#8217;re not supposed to look at the spiritual element of death. Or, if you do look at something that makes you very happy, you&#8217;re not supposed to look at the spiritual element of what makes you very happy. Instead, focus on the pure materialism of the thing. The goal is to enmesh mankind in the world.
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>How disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death with which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless in wartime. Not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever.</blockquote>
The material world, then, is the chief ally of Screwtape because people desire not to think of God. God is a distraction. God has obligations. God has duties. 
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>Human beings hate every idea that suggests Him just as men in financial embarrassment hate the very sight of a passbook. (meaning a checkbook.)</blockquote>
The idea is that if you&#8217;re not thinking about duty, and then you&#8217;re forced to think about duty, you don&#8217;t like it very much.
The other thing that Screwtape tries to get you to focus on is the future — at all times. If you can focus on the future at all times, then people will be very neglectful of the present.
So says Screwtape,
<blockquote>It&#8217;s far better to make them live in the Future. &#8230; The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time — for the Past is frozen and no longer flows and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought like Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism or Communism, which fix men&#8217;s affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. Hence, nearly all vices are rooted in the future.</blockquote>
The idea is, if you&#8217;re thinking about the future, then you&#8217;re not thinking about the spiritual consequences of the things you do in the here and now. You&#8217;re thinking about the material consequences of the things that you do in the here and now, and that allows you to do bad things in the name of a “better future.”
Screwtape says the best thing you can do is convince people that their utopian thoughts are the things that are mandated by God. So on the one hand, you try to get people sunk in reality, and this drives them away from God.
On the other hand, Screwtape advises Wormwood that people should be led to examine their own emotions constantly; if you can be narcissistic, checking yourself all the time, you&#8217;re going to end up without God.
Lewis teaches that very often in life, we engage at the beginning of a task with great enthusiasm, and then the enthusiasm wears away. This happens all the time with a variety of tasks, and once that happens, that is when you encourage people to look into being morose, look into being depressed, to reject the spiritual aspect of their duty, to stop trying to take joy in the spiritual aspect of what they&#8217;re doing, and instead focus on the fact that it&#8217;s just sheer drudgery.
Screwtape says that the rule of thumb for seducing mankind away from God is to encourage people to be unselfconscious when considering sin — to be unabashed, unashamed, blasé about your sin, but to be self-conscious and awkward when you consider acts of faith.
This is modern society in a nutshell. The more you sin, the prouder you should be. You should engage in festivals celebrating your sin. When it comes to going to church, you should be shy: “I don&#8217;t want to be judgmental; I&#8217;ll make you feel ashamed. But when it comes to my sin, man, I will tell you about my sins all day long because we can all be comfortable; we can be the boys when we&#8217;re talking about our sins.”
Screwtape also points out that one easy way to hell is to get people to disregard the individual human beings in front of them in the name of Mankind, writ large. This, obviously, is the project of the Left, which is willing to completely run over its neighbors in order to pursue a &#8220;better world&#8221; for everybody else.
The book has wonderful pieces of advice, even for people who are not totally religious, about how to act better in your inner world, how to treat other people better, and how to have better relations with your spouse.
It&#8217;s a beautifully written book.
* * *
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis | Ben Shapiro&#039;s Book Club" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pamEA0RlO7I?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CS Lewis writing

One Of My Favorite Books: ‘The Screwtape Letters’

One Of My Favorite Books: 'The Screwtape Letters'

Ben Shapiro

Bible

Books

C.S. Lewis

Christianity

Judeo-Christian Values

Literature

World War II

Just in time for the holidays, Brighton and Hove Museums is redefining Christmas for modern sensibilities — but not in a way anyone celebrating the season might enjoy. The museum, which was granted <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37706714/woke-museum-decolonises-father-christmas/">over $1.2 million</a> in taxpayer dollars earlier this year, has a guide on “decolonizing” Father Christmas, claiming that the jolly old man is too white, too male, and far too judgmental for contemporary audiences.
According to the museum, Santa’s traditional “naughty and nice” list teaches children that a Western figure has the power to judge everyone, imposing colonial assumptions and erasing Indigenous cultural practices.
The museum’s Joint Head of Culture Change, Simone LaCorbinière, published a blog post in 2023 that <a href="https://brightonmuseums.org.uk/discovery/history-stories/decolonising-father-christmas/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">stated</a>:
<blockquote>
&#8230; the tale of a white, Western Santa who judges all children’s behaviour has problems &#8230;  who decided Santa should be the judge of children’s behaviour in every community? How can he assess, for example, Indigenous children practicing their own cultural traditions? Told like this, the story presents Santa as the ultimate authority of all societies. This asks us to accept colonial assumptions of cultural superiority. It doesn’t recognise the complex realities colonised people face.
And it can erase Indigenous cultural practices and sovereignty. For example, in many Santa storybooks of my youth, and later when exploring the story with children in the family, other cultures appeared simply as backdrops for Santa’s adventure. There might be a flag, and illustrations of children in their national costume, but we learned nothing about those places and people.
This perpetuates the harmful ‘colonial gaze’. Non-Western cultures are ‘othered’. It says that the coloniser has the power to judge all people. And it ignores many communities’ histories and traditions. Telling the story like this teaches new generations that the coloniser knows best.
And what do we say by having an old white man supervise the elves’ work? Is it something entirely innocent – elves are magical, mythical beings completely separate from the real world – or is there more to it? Are they representative of other groups? How do they reinforce how marginalised groups view not only ‘father figures’ but also themselves?
Mythical maybe, but elves are identifiably different to what is often presented as ‘normal’, which is white, male and non-disabled. And in the stories, the ‘different’ ones make the toys and the white, non-disabled man supervises them.
</blockquote>
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25&amp;_gl=1*vdwpap*_gcl_au*MTYzODg4ODI4OS4xNzY1ODA4NTE2*_ga*NDM4MjI1MTA1LjE3NTc5NTYzMzI.*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NjY0MTUwMTMkbzM0OSRnMSR0MTc2NjQxNTAxNiRqNTkkbDAkaDA." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The post, which remains on the museum’s website, also included suggestions such as these:
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Remove Santa rewarding children based on a Western binary of ‘naughty/nice.’ Focus on bringing joy to kids of all backgrounds rather than judging them.</li>
<li>Put Santa to work in the factory alongside the elves. This shows him and the elves as equal.</li>
<li>Have Santa be a more diverse character who celebrates cultural exchange. Avoid promoting one culture’s dominance. An inclusive adaptation could include many Santas from different regions.</li>
<li>Include some Mother Christmases. Patriarchy and colonialism went hand in hand. Show the next generation that men don’t have to be in charge.</li>
</ul>
Critics were not impressed. Senior Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke called the initiative “the worst possible use of taxpayer funds,” while Lord Young of Acton of the Free Speech Union <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/article/santa-claus-decolonised-diversity-3l73qxcc2">derided</a> the museum as “po-faced,” sarcastically questioning whether children in non-Christian countries should now demand Santa leave a note apologizing for centuries of white supremacy.
The museum defends the project as “prompting reflection” rather than prescribing behavior, claiming it’s intended to teach children about historical narratives and cultural perspectives. In practice, it reads more like a manual for scrutinizing Christmas traditions through a lens of social justice, replacing timeless family fun with guilt and ideology.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are footing the bill.

Preparations are Underway at Santa School

Woke Christmas: Taxpayer-Funded British Museum Argues For ‘Decolonizing’ Father Christmas

Christmas

Santa Claus

Wokeness

Menu