spiked93%

Free speech, identity and cancellation 80%

By spiked0%

7/6/2026, 11:42:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Indoctrination, and Status Quo Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 63.7% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 544 faulty-reasoning hits from 102 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.3% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,483 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.50% of the article peer group.

The UK has become a warning to the world about the perils of criminalising speech. 
Thirty people a day are arrested in England and Wales for offensive social-media posts. 
While free-speech campaigners have chalked up significant victories of late, rolling back non-crime hate incidents and standing up to cancellation campaigns, the laws, policies and elite culture that ushered in this new authoritarianism remain stubbornly intact. 
What will it take to free Britain from woke censorship? 
Discussing all this and more at the inaugural spiked summit were Allison Pearson, Tom Slater and Andrew Doyle, chaired by Fraser Myers. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 35.3%spiked: 7.6%spiked: 8.9%Confirmation Bias35.3%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%spiked: 2.9%spiked: 4.0%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.8%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%spiked: 26.2%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect14.7%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.4%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 50.0%spiked: 2.7%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias50.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%spiked: 6.0%spiked: 2.6%Pessimism Bias9.8%This article: 63.7%spiked: 35.5%spiked: 13.1%Negativity Bias63.7%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.7%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 8.8%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 4.6%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.0%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.0%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 7.7%spiked: 7.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 3.6%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 35.3%spiked: 3.2%spiked: 4.0%False Dilemma35.3%This article: 0.0%spiked: 4.0%spiked: 3.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.4%spiked: 16.8%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization28.4%This article: 0.0%spiked: 2.6%spiked: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 3.4%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 45.1%spiked: 19.0%spiked: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion45.1%This article: 45.1%spiked: 6.8%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question45.1%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 1.7%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.7%spiked: 1.5%spiked: 4.0%Anecdotal13.7%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 4.1%spiked: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.7%spiked: 1.1%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote13.7%This article: 35.3%spiked: 4.4%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection35.3%This article: 59.8%spiked: 27.4%spiked: 25.8%Biased Writer Voice59.8%This article: 59.8%spiked: 7.5%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination59.8%This article: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%spiked: 26.3%spiked: 9.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%spiked: 28.3%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

102 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.