Minister doubles down on colleague's claim Farage on side of Jimmy Savile
The Technology Secretary had accused Mr Farage of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers' over Reform's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act.
Asked if she agrees with Mr Kyle's statement, Ms Alexander told Sky News: 'Nigel Farage is, in effect, saying that he is on their side because he's saying he's wanting to repeal the Online Safety Act.
'I think that the position of Reform in saying that they want to repeal the entirety of the Online Safety Act, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation when it comes to the protecting of our children and the safety of young people online, I think that, in effect, what Nigel Farage is saying is that he's totally happy for there to be a free for all on the internet.
'That's not the position of the Labour Government. It's not the position of me. It's not the position of Keir Starmer or Peter Kyle, and that is the point that the Technology Secretary was rightly making yesterday.'
Mr Farage has demanded an apology from Mr Kyle, describing the remarks as 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'.
Speaking to Sky News on Tuesday, the minister had said: 'We have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.
'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.'
Following this, Clacton MP Mr Farage urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed.
Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Kyle said proposals to overturn the Act 'makes my blood boil', as he argued repealing it would benefit 'disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online'.
He added: 'I make no apologies for putting the interests of vulnerable children ahead of the interests of predators and child abusers – and the Reform leader's ego.'
Also writing for the newspaper, Mr Farage said 'all of this is of course a deflection from the real problem with the Online Safety Act', as he raised concerns over ID checks.
He added: 'In the name of safety, the Act poses the biggest threat to freedom of speech in this country in our lifetimes.
'In the name of protecting children, the law aims to regulate what adults are allowed to say or see – while doing nothing to make our children safer.'
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said making statements about overturning the Bill is 'very lazy' and 'not responsible'.
Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide.
Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone.
'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.'
The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Calls for clarity over whether UK police can release suspects' ethnicity and immigration status
Yvette Cooper is facing demands for clarity over the information that police forces are permitted to release to the public after claims of a 'cover-up' by the authorities over the immigration status of men accused of raping a child. The Warwickshire police and crime commissioner, Philip Seccombe, called for fresh national guidance after police were accused by Reform UK of failing to confirm that two Afghan men being prosecuted for the alleged attack on a 12-year-old girl were asylum seekers. There is increasing pressure on prosecutors and the police to release details about the ethnicity and immigration status of people facing a criminal charge. Cooper, the home secretary, said on Tuesday that the guidance should change to permit police to release the ethnicity or immigration status of criminal suspects but added that she was waiting for a review to be concluded by the Law Commission. Seccombe said: 'Like all forces, Warwickshire police finds itself in a difficult position of trying to carefully balance the legal safeguards which protect the integrity of the judicial process, while maintaining public order and simultaneously ensuring that public confidence is maintained through transparency and honesty. 'Currently police forces are in an invidious position when deciding what can and should be disclosed in sensitive cases, given that the national guidance is silent on both the ethnicity and immigration status of suspects. 'It is very easy to criticise and suggest that the balance of disclosure hasn't been correct, but it is much harder to take these decisions on the ground.' The alleged rape, said to have happened on 22 July, has become the centre of a political storm after the Reform leader, Nigel Farage, on Monday amplified claims of a police cover-up. On Tuesday the leader of Reform-led Warwickshire county council said police were refusing to confirm details of the two suspects charged after the alleged attack in Nuneaton. George Finch, the youngest council leader in England, alleged within days that Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir – the two men charged in the case – were asylum seekers, but police forces do not routinely release the immigration status of suspects. In a letter to Cooper, Finch claimed the police risked 'disorder breaking out on the streets' of the county. Cooper said on Tuesday that 'we do want to see greater transparency' from police forces and she wanted national guidance to change in relation to the release of information about suspects. Mulakhil has been charged with two counts of rape, while Kabir has been charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting of the rape of a girl aged under 13. Both men are in custody and due to appear at Warwick crown court on 26 August. Warwickshire county council's chief executive briefed Finch confidentially about the immigration status of the two men, according to a letter by the force's chief constable, Alex Franklin-Smith. Franklin-Smith said he confirmed to Finch last Thursday that this information was accurate but that 'we wouldn't be releasing immigration status at point of charge as we follow national guidance'. The police chief said he had asked the Home Office to confirm the full immigration status of the two men, given that Finch had released some details publicly. He added: 'I am confident that Warwickshire police has treated this investigation seriously from the outset, working tirelessly to identify, locate, arrest and charge those suspected of being responsible for this awful crime as quickly as possible.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'As the home secretary said yesterday, it has been widely reported that this case involves two Afghan individuals who are in the asylum system, some of which information has already been confirmed in open court. 'The home secretary has made clear that there is a strong public interest in maximum transparency wherever that is possible. 'That is why the Home Office and College of Policing are working together to strengthen and clarify the guidance around how and when information is released.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Should former party leaders keep their noses out of politics?
The political phenomenon of the 'back-seat driver' is hardly new, but it's a bit of a thing at the moment. Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Jeremy Corbyn have all been giving Keir Starmer private and public advice about taxation, welfare reform, the general conduct of government, and, in Corbyn's case, even about local authorities selling off allotments. It's meant to be helpful (maybe not in the case of Starmer's immediate predecessor), but it doesn't always work out that way... What's their problem? On the whole, and crudely speaking, they think that Starmer isn't really left-wing enough, which is ironic because they too (excepting Corbyn) were often criticised for just that in their own time. Most recently, Kinnock has backed a 'wealth tax' (never a prominent part of Labour policy during his own leadership), and wants to apply VAT to private healthcare charges (supposedly analogous to private school fees). Brown doesn't, but he does think child poverty is an under-regarded problem and that the winter fuel allowance, which he introduced, needs to be restored. Tony Blair has been pushing digital ID hard, just as he did when he was in No 10, when he never quite managed to make compulsory ID cards acceptable. More critically, Blair is supposed to have told Starmer that 'this isn't working' in a wider sense, and that net zero is 'doomed to fail' (a point he later rowed back on). Were he not already in Starmer's cabinet, Ed Miliband would also be outspoken about the downgrading of his Green New Deal. Are they right? Probably, but they do enjoy the luxury of observerdom, no longer living in fear of their own MPs, financial markets and, of course, Britain's devoutly cakeist electorate. They, and we, cannot assume they'd be doing a better job, notwithstanding their experience. Even so, if Starmer metaphorically says 'Well, you try it' – running the party, government, or both – they can reply, 'Well, we did, mate.' Why does this happen? They miss the attention? Former party leaders and prime ministers – deprived, usually forcibly, of their former power and status – are sometimes unable to resist the temptation to advise and warn their successors, not least when their own policies and record are under attack (whether real or imagined). Margaret Thatcher, conscious that such interventions can be unhelpful, actually promised after she left office in 1990 (and most unwillingly) to be a 'good back-seat driver'. John Major and, to a lesser degree, William Hague would beg to differ about what that meant. Thatcher more or less inflicted on them what Ted Heath, whom she ousted, visited on her during her premiership – constant barracking, grumbling and plotting. Harold Macmillan, who'd left No 10 even longer ago, also chose to criticise her harsh economic policies in the 1980s. Kinnock, in a backhanded way, said of Blair in 2007 that 'he's a bastard, but he's our bastard'. James Callaghan, who was in the merchant navy as a young man in the war, and was most restrained towards his heirs, said this of former leaders: 'Don't distract the man at the wheel, and don't spit on the deck.' Aside from one remark, and a subsequent indecorous row with John Prescott in the Commons tea room about nuclear disarmament, Callaghan followed his own advice. Why is there so much of this now? On the Conservative side, it is largely a function of the growing population of ex-leaders – nine in all (from Major to Rishi Sunak), of whom six served as prime minister. They've usually been the more bitter critics of one another, with the Liz Truss-Kemi Badenoch spats currently being the most entertaining, and serious, because the very word 'Truss' terrifies the voters, but attempts to slap her down make the Tories look divided. It's only fair to add that John Major, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Sunak are being remarkably restrained as Badenoch continually trashes their reputations. Labour has far fewer extant former prime ministers, and fewer former leaders. In addition, they tend to be more polite, and the most potent dissident among them, Corbyn, is now outside the family. The problem comes if they start to become the focus for rebellions, and make the Labour Party look even more divided than it actually is. None, however – not even Corbyn – can match Truss for high-profile delusion.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Tax gambling industry more to lift 500,000 children out of poverty, government urged
Around half a million children could be lifted out of poverty through reforms to UK gambling laws, a leading think tank has found. The Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) is urging the government to look at measures which could raise £3.2 billion from changes to how gambling is taxed. This would be the amount of funding needed to scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, a new report from the group finds, which would lift 500,000 children out of poverty. Eliminating these two policies would be 'the most effective single step' the government could take to reduce child poverty, it adds. Backed by former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, the IPPR's proposals focus on raising duties on online gambling firms, especially online casinos, slot machines, and high-stakes betting. The think tank says harms are especially concentrated in this sector, with over 60 per cent of profits coming from just five per cent of users – many of whom are vulnerable. Henry Parkes, principal economist and head of quantitative research at IPPR, said: 'The gambling industry is highly profitable, yet is exempt from paying VAT and often pays no corporation tax, with many online firms based offshore. 'It is also inescapable that gambling causes serious harm, especially in its most high-stakes forms. Set against a context of stark and rising levels of child poverty, it only feels fair to ask this industry to contribute a little more.' The findings come as the chancellor is under pressure to raises taxes at Labour's upcoming autumn budget to address poor economic performance. The government is facing an 'impossible trilemma' caused by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth, economists from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said on Wednesday. Its economists say the chancellor must look to raise £51.1 billion at her upcoming fiscal event, arguing that both tax rises and spending cuts will be necessary to deliver the funds. Treasury officials are reportedly already considering ways to raise taxes on the gambling sector, including simplifying the varying rates of duty applied to gambling products. Lobbyists for the gambling industry have begun pushing back on these proposals, reports The Guardian, with representatives understood to have already outlined their objections to the Treasury and have reached out to Labour MPs and staff. Lending his support the the IPPR's recommendations, Gordon Brown said: 'There are many reasons why the highly profitable betting and gaming industry should pay a fairer share towards the cost of UK's unmet needs. Most important is that it would enable half a million children to be lifted out of poverty in this autumn's budget, and so help to build our country for the next generation.'
