MPs criticise 'wealth-hoarding' boomers stereotype
A report from the Commons' women and equalities committee is calling for action to tackle age discrimination, which MPs describe as widespread in the UK.
They criticise depictions of baby boomers - those born between 1946 and 1964 and now in their 60s and 70s - as either frail or enjoying a life of luxury at the expense of their children and grandchildren.
The report also hits out at what the authors say was a failure by previous governments to address digital exclusion of older people as services, particularly around banking and health, increasingly move online.
'Our winter fuel payment goes into the holiday kitty'
Why women and young people could hold more wealth in future
Starmer wants to act tough to fix long-term problems - but is he avoiding the trickiest?
The UK's population continues to get older overall, with 11 million people in England and Wales now aged over 65, and more than half a million people aged over 90.
However, the Commons report highlights evidence that ageist stereotyping is still highly prevalent across all media in the UK, including "portrayals of older people as frail, helpless or incompetent, or conversely as wealth-hoarding 'boomers'".
Research from the Centre for Ageing Better found that this type of generational stereotyping contributes to the "othering" of older people, causing "divisive and "harmful tensions in society".
An example might be the "OK Boomer" meme used to dismiss older people's opinions by suggesting they are out of touch.
The Commons committee wants to see a crackdown on these sorts of stereotypes by watchdogs including the Advertising Standards Authority and the broadcast media regulator Ofcom.
Some older people are also still at high risk of "digital exclusion", MPs believe, because they do not have the skills to access online banking, council or GP services - despite the government launching a digital inclusion strategy 10 years ago.
Latest figures from Ofcom say nearly one-in-three people (29%) aged over 75 do not have access to the internet at home, compared to roughly one-in-16 (6%) of all adults.
The Commons report concludes that existing laws against age discrimination are too weak and "failing older people" because they are rarely enforced, despite evidence of the harm such attitudes cause.
Committee chair Sarah Owen, a Labour MP for Luton North, said it was time for a review of how to shrink the UK's "pervasively ageist culture" and bring in enforcement with teeth.
"It is a considerable failure of government that the digital inclusion strategy has not been updated, nor progress tracked, for a decade," she said.
"Ultimately much more must be done to tackle ageist attitudes and discrimination across society, including in access to healthcare, local services, banking and transport."
Owen is calling for the UK government to follow the Welsh example of establishing a commissioner for older people alongside community champions to deliver a national strategy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules
Wikipedia has lost a legal challenge to new Online Safety Act rules which it says could threaten the human rights and safety of its volunteer editors. The Wikimedia Foundation - the non-profit which supports the online encyclopaedia - wanted a judicial review of regulations which could mean Wikipedia has to verify the identities of its users. But it said despite the loss, the judgement "emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected". The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Judicial reviews challenge the lawfulness of the way in which a decision has been made by a public body. In this case the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikipedia editor tried to challenge the way in which the government decided to make regulations covering which sites should be classed "Category 1" under the Online Safety Act - the strictest rules sites must follow. It argued the rules were logically flawed and too broad, meaning a policy intended to impose extra rules on large social media companies would instead apply to Wikipedia. In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its contributors, undermining their privacy and safety. The only way it could avoid being classed as Category 1 would be to cut the number of people in the UK who could access the online encyclopaedia by about three-quarters, or disable key functions on the site. The government's lawyers argued that ministers had considered whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations but had reasonably rejected the idea. 'Left the door open' In the end, the court rejected Wikimedia's arguments. But Phil Bradley-Schmieg, Lead Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, said the judgment did not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State, in Mr Justice Johnson's words, "a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations". And the judgement makes it clear other legal challenges could be possible. Wikimedia could potentially challenge Ofcom's decision making if the regulator did ultimately decide to classify the site as Category 1. And if the effect of making Wikipedia Category 1 meant it could not continue to operate, then other legal challenges could follow. "Wikipedia has been caught in the stricter regulations due to its size and user created content even though it argues (convincingly) that it differs significantly from other user-to-user platforms," said Mona Schroedel, data protection litigation specialist at law firm Freeths. "The court's decision has left the door open for Wikipedia to be exempt from the stricter rules upon review." The communications regulator Ofcom, which will enforce the act, told the BBC: "We note the court's judgment and will continue to progress our work in relation to categorised services and the associated extra online safety rules for those companies." Wikipedia legally challenges 'flawed' online safety rules
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Issues Not-So-Subtle Warning To Donald Trump About Putin Ahead Of Peace Talks
Downing Street has warned Donald Trump to be on his guard ahead of his crunch peace talks with Vladimir Putin. The two presidents are due to meet in Alaska on Friday in an attempt to thrash out a deal to end Russia's war with Ukraine. But Keir Starmer's official spokesman today used strong language to insist that nothing Putin says should be taken at face value. He said: 'You can never trust President Putin as far as you can throw him. 'We will obviously support President Trump and European nations as we enter these negotiations. 'Any ceasefire cannot just be an opportunity for President Putin to go away, re-arm, restrengthen, and then go again. 'So we're not going to leave it to trust. We're going to ensure that we're prepared such that we achieve a ceasefire.' Friday's meeting in Alaska will be the first face-to-face talks between Trump and Putin since the US president re-entered the White House in January. Trump has faced criticism for not inviting Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the talks, leading to fears that Kyiv could be forced to give up land to end the war. The PM's spokesman insisted any deal which is imposed on Ukraine would be unacceptable. He said: 'Any peace must be secured with Ukraine, not imposed on it. The prime minister has been very clear that the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.' The spokesman added: 'There can be no reward for aggression. There can be no compromise on Ukraine sovereignty.' Meanwhile, a leading think-tank has played down the prospects of a major breakthrough in Friday's talks. The Institute for the Study of War said Russia 'remains unwilling to compromise on its long-standing war aims of preventing Ukraine from joining Nato, regime change in Ukraine in favour of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Ukraine's demilitarisation – all of which would ensure Ukraine's full capitulation'. They said Russia 'will very likely violate and weaponise any future ceasefire agreements in Ukraine while blaming Ukraine for the violations as it repeatedly did in spring 2025'. Related... Downing Street Warns Trump Not To Force Ukraine To Give Up Land To End Its War With Russia Vance Claims Trump Broke A Major 'Logjam.' It's Unclear If Putin Will Play Along. Trump Has Already Handed Putin A Win By Hosting Peace Talks In Alaska
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Wikipedia May Have To Impose Identity Verification On Readers
The Wikimedia Foundation has lost its legal battle in the U.K to avoid having to verify the identity of its readers. At issue were the provisions of the Online Safety Act, which imposes new rules on the content of online platforms, to be managed by regulator Ofcom. Certain organizations are to be rated as Category 1, assessed on criteria such as the ability to forward or share content and number of users. And these are subject to greater requirements, including user verification, swift removal of harmful content and age verification. Most of the Category 1 platforms are those you might expect—Facebook, X and YouTube, for example. But Wikipedia is concerned that the criteria to be used could put it into the same category. This would, it said, threaten online safety by requiring the foundation to interfere with users' editing decisions and possibly even verify their age. It could allow potentially malicious, users to block unverified users from fixing or removing any content they post—meaning more vandalism, disinformation or abuse. It could also expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes, the Foundation argued. The foundation's only alternative would be to reduce the site's number of monthly users to take it out of Category 1 scope. Now, though, the High Court of Justice has dismissed a legal challenge to the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations from the Wikimedia Foundation and an anonymous editor known as BLN. Mr Justice Johnson said there might be ways to work within the law 'without causing undue damage to Wikipedia's operations' - and the Wikimedia Foundation is making the best of a bad job. "While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court's ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented," said Phil Bradley-Schmieg, lead counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. 'The judge recognized the "significant value" of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorizations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors." Meanwhile, the court stressed that the ruling doesn't give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to do anything to significantly impede Wikipedia's operations, and suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules. Ofcom's expected to make its first decisions on categorization this summer. The Online Safety Act has come in for a barrage of criticism: the issue of categorization comes alongside broader concerns about privacy and safety. "It is important to stress that this was not a challenge to the Online Safety Act, but instead to the regulations on categorization," commented Mark Jones, dispute resolution partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach. "Further, the door is very much open for further legal challenge by Wikipedia, if Ofcom makes Wikipedia a category 1 service."
