Mother of murdered teenager calls watering down of Online Safety Bill ‘shocking'
The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey said she is 'frustrated' by the Government's Online Safety Bill, which may be 'watered down' to appease US President Donald Trump.
Esther Ghey spoke to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg programme about the bill and the death of her 16-year-old daughter, whose murder led to UK-wide protests and vigils.
'While we are… questioning whether it's strong enough or whether it should be watered down, young people are at harm, and young people are losing their lives,' she told the BBC.
'Young people shouldn't be struggling with mental health because of what they are accessing online, and we really do need to take a hard stance on this.'
Brianna, 16, was murdered by classmate Scarlett Jenkinson and her friend Eddie Ratcliffe.
Jenkinson and Ratcliffe, who were both 15 at the time of the murder, lured Brianna to a park in Cheshire where she was stabbed 28 times with a hunting knife on February 11 2023.
Ms Ghey has previously met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his predecessor Rishi Sunak to discuss the issue and has criticised the Online Safety Act, saying it does not go far enough.
She has campaigned for an age limit on smartphone use, stricter controls on access to social media apps, tougher action on knife crime and for mindfulness to be taught in schools.
On her campaigning work on online safety and trolling, Ms Ghey said she supports a ban on social media for under 16s.
'It is an absolute cesspit,' she said in March at the screening of ITV film Brianna: A Mother's Story, which explores the murder of her daughter.
'Even if, say, if I do an interview, and I'll try not to look at comments, but I can never help myself, and I'll look at the comments, and you'll see people saying about my child, trying to tell me what gender my child was, and also really, really horrific comments too.
'And it's mentioned in the documentary as well, that when you report things, the support isn't there.
'I've reported so many comments, and I always get the response that they haven't done anything wrong, that it's not something that they can take down, and our children have access to those comments.
'No matter how much love and compassion you pump into your child when you're bringing them up, and how much empathy you can teach them as well, they will then go online and they'll see the way that other people are speaking about other people, and they might think that that's right.
'And that's without even going into the amount of harm that's online, like the dangerous challenges where young people are losing their lives due to these sick challenges that people are uploading, misogyny, hate, misinformation, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.'
The Government has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
At last the ‘Iron Chancellor' has turned, but the cost could be fatal
While Rachel Reeves has often invoked the soviet nickname embraced by Baroness Thatcher, she has typically struggled to live up to the 'Iron Chancellor' moniker she craved. Where Thatcher declared 'the lady's not for turning', Reeves has more frequently been found flip-flopping. We now have details of the latest volte-face, and a rough value has been ascribed to the political capital Labour burnt during its first major fiscal event. The price of all goodwill afforded to a new government? £450m, or 0.05pc of the total tax take. Since the winter fuel payment was first scrapped for all pensioners except those in receipt of pension credit, we've been patiently expecting this about-turn, which doesn't scream confidence in government policy. At midday yesterday, HM Treasury confirmed that a new arbitrary figure had been laid down to determine the deserving/undeserving old, this time set at £35,000. Those below this line of personal income will be entitled to £200 per household (up to £300 if all residents are over 80), while those above it are not entitled to keep the money. Yes, that is a personal income allowance to judge a household payment. On £35,001 and live alone? Not a penny. Two of you on £35,000 for a total household income of £70,000? The full amount. One of you above and one below? The payment will be split, and the one earning above the threshold will have to pay theirs back. Will it rise in line with the triple lock? No clue. Where does £35,000 come from as a limit? Well it's less than average earnings and nowhere near any tax bracket, so answers on a postcard please. Will the Government ensure only those entitled to the benefit receive it? No. It will be paid to all and clawed back through PAYE or self-assessment tax returns. Sound complicated? It sure does – and complicated generally means expensive administration. High street accountancy firms will leap on the confusion, but I'm not sure this is the productivity boost Reeves dreamed of. So far, nobody has cobbled together any estimates for how much this system will cost HMRC to develop and implement, but it's not zero. Don't forget, the previous eligibility criterion of being a pension credit recipient has already sparked its own costs. According to former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, the flurry of new applicants has already added a £200m annual cost, reducing the benefit to Treasury coffers to just £250m, not £450m, before any admin costs are factored in. That's 0.03pc of the total tax take. He explained: 'These changes wipe out most of the extra revenue which the Government was expecting to get from the winter fuel payment policy. 'Not only has the Government knocked more than a billion pounds off the expected revenue but it has also had to find more than £200m per year extra because of the surge in pension credit claims. 'Overall, the amount raised looks tiny relative to the political damage which the whole episode has caused to the Government.' But it's not just political damage – in the immediate wake of the news, gilt yields rose. Certainly, some element of this is simply factoring in the lower revenues the Government can now expect, but more critically, it is shifting perceptions. The long shadow of Liz Truss's mini-Budget continues to haunt Labour, and they are likely to be undone by their own political spin. Reeves et al oversimplified what happened in September 2022 and tied their hands in the process. Changing policy is a natural part of government and waiting for the next Budget isn't always possible, but when you tell the nation (and markets) that it's fiscally irresponsible to do so, you cannot be surprised when eyebrows are raised. Reeves's Spring Statement already effectively broke her promise of one major fiscal event per year – yesterday's revelation has broken most of the others. The policy is not accompanied by an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast (although one is promised for the next Budget), and weren't we told the cut was necessary to fill the black hole? Before the changes, ING's James Smith, a developed market economist focused on the UK, had already predicted that Reeves would have no fiscal headroom – now she'll miss it by at least another £1.25bn. With the two-child benefit cap also likely to be axed, which will add another £3.5bn to the outgoings side of the balance sheet, not to mention the £17bn cost of boosting defence spending to 3pc, Reeves is more likely to have a sore neck than any headroom. But the Chancellor keeps painting herself into a corner – she has once again recommitted herself to not raising income tax, National Insurance or VAT. She has doubled down on her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules and respect for the OBR, forcing her to fiddle with the margins every time the bond markets hiccup. We'll have to wait and see what happens with Wednesday's spending review, but something will have to give soon, and it's looking more likely than ever that it will be Reeves. 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
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Day of the Jackal' author Frederick Forsyth dies at 86
Frederick Forsyth, the British author of 'The Day of the Jackal' and other bestselling thrillers, has died after a brief illness, his literary agent said Monday. He was 86. Jonathan Lloyd, his agent, said Forsyth died at home early Monday surrounded by his family. 'We mourn the passing of one of the world's greatest thriller writers,' Lloyd said. Born in Kent, in southern England, in 1938, Forsyth served as a Royal Air Force pilot before becoming a foreign correspondent. He covered the attempted assassination of French President Charles de Gaulle in 1962, which provided inspiration for 'The Day of the Jackal,' his bestselling political thriller about a professional assassin. Published in 1971, the book propelled him into global fame. It was made into a film in 1973 starring Edward Fox as the Jackal and more recently a television series starring Eddie Redmayne and Lashana Lynch. In 2015, Forsyth told the BBC that he had also worked for the British intelligence agency MI6 for many years, starting from when he covered a civil war in Nigeria in the 1960s. Although Forsyth said he did other jobs for the agency, he said he was not paid for his services and 'it was hard to say no' to officials seeking information. 'The zeitgeist was different,' he told the BBC. 'The Cold War was very much on.' He wrote more than 25 books including 'The Afghan,' 'The Kill List,' 'The Dogs of War' and 'The Fist of God' that have sold over 75 million copies, Lloyd said. His publisher, Bill Scott-Kerr, said that 'Revenge of Odessa,' a sequel to the 1974 book 'The Odessa File' that Forsyth worked on with fellow thriller author Tony Kent, will be published in August. 'Still read by millions across the world, Freddie's thrillers define the genre and are still the benchmark to which contemporary writers aspire,' Scott-Kerr said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Foreign Office staff told to consider resigning if they disagree on Gaza
Civil servants in the Foreign Office have been told they should resign if they disagree with the Government's policy over Gaza, reports suggest. Some 300 staff at the Government department, based in the UK and offices abroad, sent a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy raising concerns about Israel's conduct in Gaza, the BBC reported. The letter warned of 'complicity' in Israel's actions and questioned continued UK arms sales to the country, according to the broadcaster. The Foreign Office's two most senior officials, Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, responded to the letter. 'If your disagreement with any aspect of Government policy or action is profound your ultimate recourse is to resign from the Civil Service. This is an honourable course,' they told staff in their reply. The two Foreign Office bosses insisted they wanted to see a 'healthy challenge' to policy but said it was up to civil servants to deliver on the will of the Government. The letter, which follows several other similar missives to Civil Service chiefs, was signed on May 16, the BBC reported. In it, the signatories said: 'In July 2024, staff expressed concern about Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and potential UK government complicity. 'In the intervening period, the reality of Israel's disregard for international law has become more stark.' They went on to list the killing by Israeli forces of 15 aid workers in March, and the blockade on aid into Gaza, among their concerns. They added that 'supported by the Trump administration, the Israeli government has made explicit plans for the forcible transfer of Gaza's population'. Ministers' official line is that Israel is 'at risk' of breaching international law with its actions in Gaza. The Government halted 30 out of around 350 arms sales licences to Israel in September last year, for fear they may be used for war crimes. MPs critical of Israel's actions have called on ministers to go further, and to halt all UK arms sales to the country. The Foreign Office was contacted for comment.
