V surprised there is not more government reaction to the horrific murder of Preston Davey, clearly the fault of the vile individuals but also the worst list I have ever seen of state failures. There is no sense yet even at a local level that systems will change to respond

This is one of those questions where if it’s being asked, the answer is probably yes. But it’s nowhere close to being the whole picture, it’s compounded by the fact that nobody seems particularly bothered about doing their jobs anymore

It’s cute that you expect sympathy over some hurty words when your actions have disrupted numerous children’s educations, made thousands of teachers and staff redundant and caused longstanding institutions to close - while achieving none of your stated aims for state schools

Two men adopt a healthy, happy baby. His grandmother, who looks after his sister, objects. She asks for the baby to be fostered for a few months until she is well enough to take him. This is denied. His adoptive "father" abuses him until he dies.

I'm just going to keep posting this all day dizzythinks.substack.com/p/t… but whether any Lobby hack can be bothered to read _and_ understand it let alone politicians is unknown.

There's been a number of people touting the idea of a VPN ban, but worth noting it isn't really possible, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, many public sector agencies utilize VPNs themselves, datacenters with international customers are using them, and critical infrastructure also uses a variety of VPN technologies. Therefore any proposed ban would be superficial or performative at best, likely primarily targeting domestic VPN providers. Even regulating those would prove problematic though. Exceptions would be made for commercial/business/corporate use, and domestic providers could pivot around that. At best they may be able to force UK based providers to require ID, but plenty of international providers already ignore UK government demands and will continue to do so - a market which will then only grow. There's other tactics they could use (pressuring providers to block VPN endpoints, etc) but that won't be a problem long term either. This is before we've even gotten into alternative methods/protocols like nostr. VPN bans in China/Iran had some efficacy (but still relatively easy to circumvent) due to the fact they have the national firewall, complete with DPI (deep packet inspection). UK would never be able to replicate this due to our positioning as a global comms hub & existing infrastructure. A very different environment. Labour MPs might rattle on about banning it - but none of it will be based in reality. Just performative nonsense from people that use the internet through either an intern or an iPad. Hence why even the existing legislations they have introduced are laughably easy to circumvent, and why you now have Meta asking questions and giving recommendations that should have been obvious from the start (which is another indicator that the UK gov simply wouldn't have a clue on how to implement a VPN ban).

Right. So it will only be enforced on Android and iPhone now will it? What about Windows and Mac? Have they actually thought any of this through? They've started with "must create a legacy for lame duck prime minister" and are just working it all out as they go along.

The Royal Society for Blind Children and the National Deaf Children's Society have both come out against the Starmer social media ban. "Internet bad" is a trendy, upper-middle-class opinion for people with extracurricular budgets that ignores legions of people who rely on it.

The social media ban is the perfect example of idiotic policy being implemented because it is 'popular'. So much wrong with it that's already been well highlighted, but here's my own personal objection. My son is obsessed with classical music. He is a gifted cellist who wants to be a professional musician. He spends hours watching performances on @YouTube - learning so much about the profession he hopes to pursue. To carry on watching these performances and lectures that can be found nowhere else, he will have to break the law. It's utterly mad.

What the fuck are you filming this for? This is an incredibly odd thing for an MP to do. Modern politicians just want to be social media influencers with power over legislation.

One of the consequences of the UK rotating through six (soon likely seven) PMs in about a decade is that the country has been peppered with shoddy legacy-building legislation that PMs circling the drain were desperate to get over the line

Including YouTube in the social media "ban" is v unfortunate, it's the best educational source in the world, kids without knowhow to use a VPN or parents who won't let them use an adult account will be disadvantaged relative to peers. "YouTube Kids" is not a suitable alternative

Taking YouTube away from your daughter is your choice. Taking it away from everyone else’s sons and daughters shouldn’t be. This is going to put British children and teenagers at a profound disadvantage compared to children in other countries, who have access to an unimaginably large educational resource. Our children will now know less about the world, and find it more difficult to ‘read around’ the subjects they love. I’m sorry you didn’t grow up with YouTube. I did, and it has done me the world of good.

After 10 years tracking the social media debate I've come to two conclusions: 1. There's no clear evidence to justify a sweeping ban. Sorry I know people hate to hear this but it's true. Social media has harms *and* benefits and the sensible solution is obviously to redesign social media to preserve the benefits and ameliorate the harms (That's why many of the most passionate defenders of child safety - NSPCC, Molly Rose Foundation, Mumsnet etc - are out there *criticising* today's ban) 2. Government has no capacity to plan and enforce this kind of redesign. If you want to see this in action, go and Google something. Anything you can buy. "Shoes." "Toaster." Everything you see in the top half of the screen was designed by the European Commission to help small companies compete online. Has it worked? Of course not! If anything it's *worse* than before. There are many similar cases People often say: "Why don't you just tell the tech companies to do x or y?" Think about the reality of this. You tell them - they make the change - it doesn't appear to work. You don't have live data. You don't have technical expertise. At a very basic level you don't understand *why* online environments produce the effects they do. You're trying to run experiments in what is effectively enemy territory and your lines of communication have been cut A lot of people struggle to internalise this reality. I heard someone on the radio this morning saying children should have custom extra safe hardware. A government-made phone? This is the stuff of fantasy So: you face a hard choice between nuance and clarity. And honestly - I can see the arguments for both. There is a good case to reset the status quo with a hard ban that draws a sharp line Except that... this ban isn't a sharp line. What about WhatsApp? Discord? YouTube (not a social network)? What happens now to the teen accounts which have been carefully designed to safeguard children? I could go on. Meanwhile options that do genuinely provide clarity, like an overnight curfew, are still being considered I am very sympathetic to the idea that you need to impose clarity on this situation, even if that comes at a cost But is this ban something that *is* clear, or something that *looks* clear?

Just seen this: 'Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards.' So it's not just a ban for kids, it's ID-gating half of the internet.

Damning assessment of Palestine Action by Appeal Court judges: “The whole premise of Palestine Action is to cause damage to property belonging to Elbit and other companies trading lawfully in the United Kingdom. It is a covert organisation that has revealed little about itself in these proceedings. Its activities are carried out by unidentifiable selves whose objective is to avoid detection, as reflected amongst other things in the underground manual. The future threats and risks posed to third-party individuals and property by Palestine action were perhaps the most important factors to weigh in the balance.”

Already something very fishy about Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill. Edwards says she doesn’t think the Bill should be enacted through the Parliament Acts, yet is insisting exactly the same Bill be passed by the Commons as last time, refusing even to incorporate Lord Falconer’s 70 amendments from the last session. There can only be one reason for this: the Parliament Acts require the same Bill to be passed by the Commons in two sessions. I’ve no doubt that Edwards will continue to present her Bill simply as an opportunity for the Commons to ask the Lords to “finish the job”, but the idea that the Bill won’t end up on the statute book if the Commons passes it again is, frankly, disingenuous.

Credit where credit is due. This government proscribed Palestine Action, despite the chorus of rage from The Guardian's comment section. Nor did they listen to various Socialist Campaign Group MPs urging them to bow to the High Court's decision. No, they appealed and won.

"Ban on Palestine Action was lawful, court of appeal rules "Judges overturn decision of high court that government proscription of group under Terrorism Act was wrong" theguardian.com/uk-news/2026…

YouTube is the largest broadcast platform in the world. Bigger than the BBC. Bigger than mainstream media It's also among biggest sources of news for u16s, who will be expected to vote at their next birthday. I don't think Government really grasps the implications of this ban