Growing threat of teenage boys targeting girls online for sexual abuse and violence, says NCA
Teenage boys are grooming young girls into sexual abuse, self-harm and even suicide after forming 'sadistic and violent online gangs', the National Crime Agency has warned.
The gangs - formed mainly of boys - are sharing misogynistic posts, images of violence and gore, and child sexual abuse pictures in so-called 'com networks'.
The NCA says it has seen a surge of reports – increasing six-fold - in the UK between 2022 and 2024, covering thousands of victims and culprits.
The crime-fighting agency spoke out on Tuesday alongside Government Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Jess Phillips to warn about the emerging phenomenon.
It comes after Netflix drama Adolescence – the most talked-about show this year - thrust on to the national agenda the impact of social media on children and the negative influences of the 'manosphere'.
The Stephen Graham drama, which depicts the fallout from the murder of a schoolgirl by a 13-year-old boy, has led Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to welcome calls for it to be shown in schools.
The NCA has now published its annual National Strategic Assessment, which outlines the dangers of 'com networks' and social media which 'routinely share harmful content and extremist or misogynistic rhetoric'.
It said: 'Extreme and illicit imagery depicting violence, gore and child sexual abuse material is frequently shared amongst users, normalising and desensitising participants to increasingly extreme content and behaviours.
''Com' networks use extreme coercion to manipulate their victims, who are often children, into harming or abusing themselves, their siblings or pets, and re-victimising them by doxing or appropriation by other offenders.
'Members of 'Com' networks are usually young men who are motivated by status, power, control, misogyny, sexual gratification or an obsession with extreme or violent material.
'The emergence of these types of online platforms are almost certainly causing some individuals, especially younger people, to develop a dangerous propensity for extreme violence.'
It comes shortly after Kyle Clifford was jailed for the rest of his life for the murders of his ex-girlfriend Louise Hunt, her sister Hannah, and her mother Carol in a horrific attack at their family home.
Clifford, 26, launched the attack with a crossbow and a knife after Louise had ended their relationship, after concerns about his controlling behaviour and racist views. Detectives then discovered he had watched a video from misogynist influencer Andrew Tate prior to the killings.
Graeme Biggar, director general of the NCA, said 'deeply concerning' networks online are competing for notoriety by sharing increasingly disturbing content and inflicting escalating harm on their victims.
'Young people are being drawn into these sadistic and violent online gangs where they are collaborating at scale to inflict, or incite others to commit, serious harm', he said.
'These groups are not lurking on the dark web, they exist in the same online world and platforms young people use on a daily basis.
'It is especially concerning to see the impact this is having on young girls who are often groomed into hurting themselves and in some cases, even encouraged to attempt suicide.'
Mr Biggar urged parents and carers to speak to children about what they are doing online, and added that some victims may not realise a crime has been committed against them because they have been groomed.
Ms Phillips hit out at the 'absolutely horrific' online abuse and called for a 'co-ordinated response to tackle this global issue.
'We have seen the heartbreaking impact of crimes such as grooming and sextortion on victims around the world - many of them children who have been blackmailed and manipulated into sharing images of themselves, which has devastatingly led to some children taking their own lives.'
She added: 'My message to parents is to have open conversations with your children and to seek support if you are concerned about child sexual abuse.
'My message to tech companies is simple: this is your responsibility too. You must ensure your platforms are safe for children, so that we can protect the most vulnerable and put predators behind bars.'
Undercover police officers have been deployed to track down online networks and expose offenders, and police forces have echoed calls for social media companies to do more to help tackle the problem.
Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, called on the Government and regulator Ofcom to take action over extreme material online.
He said: 'These horrendous groups pose a deeply disturbing and sharply growing risk to children, especially teenage girls who are being sadistically groomed into acts of self-harm and even suicide online.
'Despite being repeatedly warned of the threat posed by these groups, Ofcom has failed to introduce a single targeted measure to tackle disturbing suicide and self-harm offences. This glaring gap in its regulatory regime must be closed.
'The Prime Minister must now take decisive action to ensure the Online Safety Act is fit for purpose in the face of new online risks and the threat posed by the fluid ideologies that are fuelling this troubling wave of extreme violence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Starmer's homelessness reform could see Britain overrun by rough sleepers
The 'tent city' on Park Lane, in the central reservation near Hyde Park Corner, comprises 23 tents, tables, office chairs, shopping trolleys and washing lines. A neatly stacked pile of bin bags lies to one side while Lime bikes have been discarded around the settlement. A handful of large white signs are stacked up, reading: 'I'm hungry, God bless.' Those living here suggest there is little difference between their circumstances and those of the thousands of rough sleepers across the country, who will be decriminalised under plans announced by Sir Keir Starmer this week. To tourists, residents and those working in the surrounding Mayfair streets, however, the scene might more aptly be described as illegal camping. 'It's not good at all, but we don't have a permanent place where we can wait for approval from City Hall [for housing],' says Mihai, 54, from Romania, the only inhabitant prepared to speak to The Telegraph, who refuses to give his surname. 'Would you like to live here?' He says he has lived at the site for two years, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK and works as a cleaner. He has also camped at Marble Arch and in Hyde Park. There were more people in the camp previously, he says, but they have gradually been found housing. A mile to the east, at Tottenham Court Road, Mel, 60, who also refuses to give his surname, lives in another encampment with his nephews Danny, 27, and Liam, 22, and their dogs, Cain and Sierra. Mel was born in west London and says he used to have three full-time jobs – in sales and advertising, as an estate agent and as a supervisor at a bowling alley – but has been living on the street for six years since he was kicked out of his council house over a dispute with a neighbour. 'It's not a choice for me living on the street,' he says. 'If it was, I wouldn't have been here for nearly seven years now.' He adds that Romanian migrants are more comfortable living this way. 'People from other places have a tent mentality,' he says. 'What bugs me is we're a first-world country, and these people don't have the understanding that when you come to a better country, you have to make yourself better. You can't just stand on the corner drinking beer and whistling at women. It's easy for them because they grew up in desolate countries.' The situation in central London encapsulates the complexity of legislating around homelessness. On Tuesday, the Government announced plans to decriminalise rough sleeping, continuing a Tory proposal from 2022 to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act. The Bill was originally brought in to deal with rising homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and has long been considered out of date, with references to 'vagabonds' and 'rogues'. 'We are drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society, who deserve dignity and support,' said Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister. 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and, by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' To ensure the police still have authority to combat antisocial behaviour, the Government promised to create new offences, including facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously included under the 1824 Act. Experts warn legislation against begging may yet rub up against the European Convention on Human Rights; in 2021, the court ruled that Switzerland had violated human rights when it fined a woman who had been begging. Homelessness is a global issue, of course, and there is a huge range of government responses to it. While Britain is moving to decriminalise rough sleeping, America has gone in the other direction. Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that punishing rough sleepers was not a 'cruel and unusual punishment,', as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Homelessness has become a pressing problem in several American cities, most notoriously San Francisco. An estimated 771,000 Americans were homeless last year, more than any year on record. Since the ruling, at least 163 municipalities have passed rules banning camping. There are signs that policy is working. Last year, the California governor, Gavin Newsom, promised 'no more excuses' for the state with the highest 'unsheltered' rate in the country. Since encampments began to be cleared after the Supreme Court ruling, California's rate has stabilised. While, nationwide, homelessness increased by 18 per cent, in California it rose by just 3 per cent. In Fresno, California, members of the public can now report camps via an app. Rough sleepers could face fines of up to $1,000 or a year in prison, or they can ask to be taken to a shelter to discuss treatment or housing. When asked about whether the new rules were simply moving homeless people out of sight, Jerry Dyer, the city's Republican mayor and its former police chief, recently told The Economist: 'I'm sure there are people that have now chosen places that are less visible publicly, which is not a bad thing.' Some fear that the relaxing of rules in the UK will lead to the proliferation of rough sleeping seen in California prior to last year's Supreme Court ruling, in which Park Lane-style encampments spread across the country. 'San Francisco is the worst example but loads of these Left-wing-run cities in America have taken an approach of non-enforcement of laws around rough sleeping and petty crime,' says Fred de Fossard, the strategy director of the Prosperity Institute and a former Tory special adviser at the Cabinet Office, highlighting the absurdity of the UK taking such an approach when the United States is tacking in the opposite direction. 'Repealing the Vagrancy Act paves the way for [American levels of rough sleeping] here. This, in turn, will lead to a clamp-down in the future that will be 'more authoritarian than people are comfortable with and it will be entirely avoidable because we have taken a misguided, short-termist approach to these laws. This will fortify these encampments and make it harder for police to get rid of genuine criminals.' Certainly, those in charge of clearing encampments such as the one at Park Lane may wish police had similar powers to their US counterparts. The problem has been rumbling on for years. Last month, a court granted Transport for London (TfL), which owns the land, a possession order to remove the camp on Park Lane. A TfL spokesman said: 'We had to take enforcement action to regain possession of the site on two occasions last year; however, a number of people have returned with tents and other belongings.' David Spencer, the head of crime and justice at Policy Exchange, a think tank, and a former Met Police officer, says the situation at Park Lane encapsulates the difficulties facing those trying to disperse groups of rough sleepers, and the risks of removing their powers. 'Aggressive begging, rough sleeping and associated antisocial behaviour are things residents bring up all the time with the police,' he says. 'The reality is that they are issues which the police and local authorities are not able or willing to get to grips with. The police would never look at arrest and prosecution in the first instance, but what the Government is doing is removing the backstop, taking away almost any power the police has to deal with it. 'What we risk is a constant slide towards the degradation of our public realm, with government, police, authorities seeming to take a more permissive attitude to things like graffiti, begging, rough sleeping, fare dodging, which come up all the time with law-abiding people going about their lives,' he adds. 'People are sympathetic to those who find themselves in these situations, but we risk taking away the backstop that lets authorities do something about it. If we look at Park Lane, things have really got out of control. While some rough sleepers in central London beg, others manage to work, often in marginal gig-economy employment as delivery drivers or kitchen porters. Others choose to leave offered accommodation altogether. In June 2023, dozens of asylum seekers camped outside the accommodation they were offered in Pimlico, having balked at the prospect of sleeping four to a room. Signs by their camp read: 'This is a prison, not a hotel.' The Home Office stated that the accommodation was offered on a 'no-choice basis' and met 'all legal and contractual requirements.' In May 2024, Sadiq Khan pledged to end rough sleeping by 2030, and secured £17 million in central funding to do so. But if dealing with homeless people who want to find accommodation is difficult enough, what to do about those who – like the asylum seekers in Pimlico – prefer to sleep outside? Rough sleeping is only the most visible form of homelessness, which can also include living in temporary accommodation, sofa-surfing – sometimes called 'hidden homelessness' – and statutory homelessness, where a tenant has been served an eviction notice. The nature of rough sleeping can be difficult to quantify. According to the Ministry of Housing, which collates estimates from local authorities, there are around 2,000 rough sleepers in London, a figure that has more than doubled since the pandemic. Its data show that in that period, rough sleeping has risen across the country, in some areas by many multiples, including 1050 per cent in Charnwood, Leicestershire. Other sources put the figures much higher. According to the homelessness charity St Mungo's, there were 4,427 people recorded rough sleeping in London in the first quarter of 2025, an increase of 8 per cent on the same period last year. 'More people are becoming homeless and people are staying homeless for longer,' says Sean Palmer, the executive director of strategy and transformation at St Mungo's. 'It's getting more difficult to move people off of the streets, because there's not a supply of social housing, there's a block at the end of the system.' Rough sleeping has already been in effect decriminalised, with only five people sentenced for 'sleeping out' in England and Wales since 2017. Begging prosecutions have also fallen: the 160 sentences handed down for begging in 2024 was the lowest annual total on record, less than a fifth of the series high in 2018. But Palmer says the law can still have a deterrent effect on people seeking help: 'The Act as it is now isn't good for our clients, people suffering from homelessness and people rough sleeping. Sometimes it encourages them to hide more because they don't want to be criminalised and are less likely to receive the help and support they need to resolve their homelessness.' He says Mungo's clients come from a wide range of situations. 'It could be problems with the housing market, problems with money. A lot of people are bouncing around insecure accommodation and eventually they run out of goodwill and end up on the streets. Often our clients have backgrounds in the care system, sometimes in the military. Often people are leaving a government institution – they might be discharged from hospital, or be being moved on from the asylum system, or they might have left prison. 'I can't see how criminalising someone is helpful. We see the numbers of people coming out of the criminal justice system into homelessness. Feeding them back into the criminal justice system for being homeless, or feeding people who are homeless for other reasons back into the justice system, seems entirely counterproductive.' Proposed new offences target aggressive beggars and gangs, rather than individuals. The cautionary example of the US, however, shows what can happen when authorities have insufficient powers to disperse rough sleepers. The knottier issue at the heart of legislation is that many people don't think camping ought to be illegal and have great sympathy for those who find themselves homeless, even if they object to the sight of tent cities in some of London's most prestigious areas. The legal fudges reflect this Nimbyism. It also means that as a political issue, rough sleeping will not be moving along any time soon. Additional reporting by Ollie Corfe Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK crime agency freezes assets of disgraced Sheikh Hasina ally
The UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) has frozen properties in the United Kingdom owned by Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, Bangladesh's former Minister of Land, Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit (I-Unit) can reveal. The move follows legal requests from Bangladesh authorities to take action against assets owned by Chowdhury, a political ally of deposed Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the now-banned Awami League party. Chowdhury is under investigation by Bangladesh authorities for money laundering. Last night, in a statement to the I-Unit, an NCA spokesperson confirmed the freezing order: 'We can confirm that the NCA has secured freezing orders against a number of properties as part of an on-going civil investigation.' The property freeze means, in effect, that the assets cannot be sold by Chowdhury. The action by the police agency, often dubbed 'Britain's FBI', coincided with this week's visit to London by Bangladesh's interim leader, Professor Muhammad Yunus. Last year, Al Jazeera revealed Chowdhury, 56, owns more than 350 properties in the UK. While the full extent of the NCA's action is not yet understood, the I-Unit can disclose that Chowdhury's luxury home in St John's Wood, London, is part of the asset freeze. The home, bought for 11 million pounds ($14.8m), was the scene of secret filming by undercover reporters from Al Jazeera's I-Unit. Reporters met Chowdhury during a long-running investigation into wealth that he had accumulated while he was still a government minister. During the meeting, Chowdhury talked expansively to reporters about his global property portfolio and revealed his taste for expensive suits and designer 'baby croc' leather shoes. He described his close ties to the now deposed Sheikh Hasina, telling Al Jazeera's journalists, 'I am like her son, actually.' 'She knows I have a business here,' he also told them. The I-Unit revealed that Chowdhury, from a powerful family in the port city of Chittagong, amassed a property empire despite a $12,000 annual limit as part of the nation's currency laws on the amount a citizen can take out of Bangladesh. The investigation uncovered that Chowdhury spent more than $500m on real estate in London, Dubai, and New York but did not declare his overseas assets on his Bangladesh tax returns. The undercover meeting was part of the Al Jazeera documentary The Minister's Millions, broadcast last October. Chowdhury had been a close ally of deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who fled Bangladesh in August 2024 after hundreds were killed as security forces cracked down on student protests. After Hasina's departure, Bangladesh authorities launched an investigation into allegations of widespread corruption in her government. Following the uprising and street violence in Bangladesh, the I-Unit tracked down Chowdhury to his London home, where he could be observed taking leisurely walks around his exclusive neighbourhood, which includes Lord's Cricket Ground. In earlier statements to Al Jazeera, Chowdhury said the funds used to buy his overseas properties came from legitimate businesses outside Bangladesh, which he had owned for years. The former minister claimed he was the subject of a politically motivated 'witch-hunt' against him.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Company linked to Baroness Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, court told
A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were 'faulty' because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 'It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'simply about compliance'. He said: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: 'Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. 'On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject', after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not 'representative of the whole population', meaning 'no proper conclusions may be drawn'. He said the DHSC's claim was 'contrived and opportunistic' and PPE Medpro had been 'made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors' by the department. He said: 'It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. 'In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money.' He also said there was a 'delicious irony' that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had 'zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
