Social media time limits for children considered by government
Ian Russell, whose daughter, Molly, took her own life at 14 after seeing harmful content online, said: "Every day the government has delayed bringing in tougher online safety laws we've seen more young lives lost and damaged because of weak regulation and inaction by big tech."Mr Russell, who backed the previous government's Online Safety Act, said only "stronger and more effective" legislation would "finally change the dial on fundamentally unsafe products and business models that prioritise engagement over safety.""Parents up and down the country would be delighted to see the prime minister act decisively to quell the tsunami of harm children face online, but sticking plasters will not do the job."Kyle told the BBC he had not been able to speak publicly about the government's plans to toughen online safety laws because legislation passed by the previous Conservative government in 2023 had yet to be enacted."This year we've had illegal content that needs to be taken down, but in July, age-appropriate material must be supplied by platforms, otherwise there'll be criminal sanctions against them," he told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.He said that he had been looking carefully at what government needed to do next to "nail down harder" on safety, "understand what a healthy online life for children" looked like and "stop the barriers" towards achieving that.
In January, Kyle told the BBC that laws on internet safety were "very uneven" and "unsatisfactory", following calls from campaigners to tighten the rules.The minister expressed his "frustration" with the Online Safety Act but did not commit to making changes to the legislation.A Whitehall source later told the BBC there were no plans to repeal the act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Locals in Epping have welcomed an injunction to block asylum seekers from being housed at a nearby hotel, but raised concerns the decision would only 'kick the can down the road'. Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
New pics of Trump holding court in Oval Office branded ‘embarrassing' as world leaders sit around his desk: ‘Like schoolchildren'
New pictures showing Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office in front of major world leaders has been criticized as an "embarrassing" power play by the president, in what should have been a display of global unity. Some on social media noted that the set up, with Trump behind the Resolute Desk and his European counterparts on chairs opposite him, presented the president as hosting a bunch of 'unruly schoolchildren.' The president was joined for the photo-op by leaders including British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanual Macron, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb. Also in attendance were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Another photo showed a smiling Trump posing with a new golf club, gifted to him by Zelensky. However, the meeting of the circled leaders drew the ire of social media users, with some commenting that the staging and White House mantra of of 'peace through strength' was 'deeply disrespectful to U.S. history itself.' 'Permenant peace is never truly obtained through strength. It may hold for a while under pressure, but it won't last,' wrote one user. 'What a breathtakingly rude, narcissistic asshole,' another said. 'Instead of a conference table where everyone can meet equally, Chump lined them up like unruly school children in a row with himself as the authority figure. Chump can just f*** all the way off.' Others questioned how the leaders, who came to Washington D.C. as 'equals' had allowed such a belittling set up. 'Embarrassing,' wrote one user, with another going further, writing 'I cannot believe they let Trump seat them like a bunch of schoolchildren. 'Do none of these 'leaders' have any testosterone whatsoever or PR teams that can approve/reject seating arrangements. Most embarrassing thing I've ever seen for the EU.'
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
What High Court hotel ruling means for migrants across Britain
On Tuesday, Epping Forest district council was granted a temporary injunction to stop migrants from being housed in the Bell Hotel. All migrants must now leave the hotel by 4pm on September 12. But the ruling could have a wider impact on migrant hotels across the country. Q: Will all migrant hotels in Britain now close? A: No – the interim injunction only applies to the Bell Hotel in Epping. Other hotels with contracts to house asylum seekers will be able to continue to do so. However, Epping Forest district council's victory could prompt other local authorities to submit similar legal applications. Q: Why are so many migrants being housed in hotels? A: In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of 'contingency' asylum accommodation because of the limited availability of private dwellings and hostels. In most cases, this consists of hotel rooms, procured through government contracts for the use of asylum seekers. A backlog of asylum cases and rising numbers of Channel migrant crossings have contributed to large numbers of asylum seekers being housed in hotel accommodation over the past five years. Q: What is Yvette Cooper's statutory duty to asylum seekers on accommodation? A: The Home Secretary is required to provide accommodation and subsistence support to all destitute asylum seekers whilst their claims are being decided. These legal obligations are set out under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Support under section 95 of the Act is provided for people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim or appeal. Section 98 support is provided while a person's eligibility for section 95 asylum support is being considered. Q: What will the Government do next? A: Lawyers representing Ms Cooper made a last-minute legal application to intervene in the case ahead of the judgment. However, Mr Justice Eyre rejected the application. Angela Eagle, the border security minister, said the Government would 'carefully consider this judgment', adding: 'As this matter remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.' However, lawyers for the Home Office confirmed that they would seek to appeal against the injunction. Q: How many migrants are in the Bell Hotel? A: The Bell Hotel has 80 rooms and can currently accommodate up to 138 asylum seekers. Following a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Eyre ordered Somani Hotels Ltd to stop housing any new migrant residents while the judgment was pending. Q: What crimes are alleged to have been committed by Bell Hotel migrants? A: Three residents are currently facing criminal charges. Hadush Gerbeslaisie Kebatu, 41, was arrested after allegedly sexually assaulting a schoolgirl on July 7, days after arriving in Britain. The Ethiopian denied all wrongdoing when he was charged and appeared at Chelmsford magistrates' court on July 17. Kebatu's arrest prompted a series of protests at the hotel. However, Mr Justice Eyre's judgment on the hotel also referenced the arrest of two other residents. Last month, Rawand Abdulrih, 36, was charged with arson with intent to endanger life over an incident that took place at the hotel on April 5. Abdulrih was also charged with the same offence in relation to a separate fire at the Phoenix Hotel, another migrant hotel nearby, on March 28. Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, another resident of the Bell Hotel, is accused of kissing a man on the neck on July 25. In court last week, he denied a charge of sexually assaulting a man aged over 16 by touching him in a sexual way without consent. Q: What legal argument did the council use to secure the interim injunction? A: Epping Forest district council largely hung its argument on planning laws and the fact that Somani Hotels had not obtained permission to change the use of the hotel to an accommodation for asylum seekers. Q: Is it a permanent injunction? A: It is an interim injunction, which means it is not permanent but granted temporarily ahead of a full hearing, which is set to take place in the autumn. Lawyers for the hotel firm and the Home Secretary confirmed in court that they intended to appeal against the injunction. If appeals are submitted quickly, the Court of Appeal may decide to grant the residents a further stay before they are evicted.
