Poll: children's exposure to porn higher after Online Safety Act
Over a quarter of people said they had seen online porn by the age of 11 – with some rather disturbingly noting they were 'aged six or younger' when asked about their first exposure. Seven out of ten young people said they had seen porn before the age of 18 in 2025, compared with 64 per cent two years ago. The data – taken from a survey of 1,010 children and young people aged 16-21 – found that more vulnerable children now than before said they had been exposed to porn earlier, while the latest survey found that six in ten respondents said they had seen porn online by accident compared to four in ten in 2023. And the rise of social media has taken its toll, with Elon Musk's Twitter being the most common source of pornography for children. Good heavens…
A government spokesperson said: 'Children have been left to grow up in a lawless online world for too long, bombarded with pornography and harmful content that can scar them for life. The Online Safety Act is changing that.' But Mr S isn't so sure. Reform leader Nigel Farage was blasted by Labour after a recent press conference for being on the 'same side as Jimmy Savile' after he said his party would repeal the OSA if it got into power. Science Secretary Peter Kyle was first to take aim Farage and No. 10 doubled down. The Reform leader and his head of DOGE Zia Yusuf have both said there must be an alternative way to protect children on the internet, pointing out that young people are more adept at using VPNs to get around online restrictions than the people writing the legislation. And certainly this latest survey weakens the Labour lot's defence of the controversial law…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
How many people are in asylum hotels and who is to blame for the UK using them
A 'failure of public policy' under the Tories saw former immigration minister Robert Jenrick brag about how fast he was securing hotel rooms as the asylum backlog grew and grew The Government faces an asylum hotel crisis as councils line up to launch legal challenges which could see thousands of people kicked out. On Tuesday the High Court granted a temporary injuction preventing the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing migrants after weeks of tension. Home Office lawyers had warned that such a ruling 'could put Britain's asylum hotel scheme at risk of falling apart' as ministers grapple to shut down venues. Dozens of local authorities are now exploring similar challenges, with the Government now drawing up contingency plans. Labour has vowed to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament after the Tories resorted to using them when the asylum system descended into chaos. Experts said a "failure of public policy", with years of not processing asylum claims by the Conservatives, led to people being put in expensive accommodation. In 2023, when the asylum backlog was a mammoth 175,000, more than 400 hotels were in use, housing over 56,000 people. At the time Robert Jenrick, who was immigration minister, bragged at the speed he was securing rooms. He said, in a quote dug up by Labour this week: "More hotels have been coming online almost every month throughout the whole of this year. So Suella Braverman and her predecessor Priti Patel were securing more hotels. What I have done in my short tenure is wrap that up and secure even more." The brazen Shadow Justice Secretary has been vocal on the issue of asylum hotels in recent weeks, joining demonstrations outside the Bell Hotel to protest about problems his party caused. The backlog swelled after the UK lost its legal right to return migrants to Europe after Brexit, while a string of botched laws under the Tories failed to drive down small boat crossings. The Conservatives pinned their hopes on being able to send people to Rwanda as the number of people in the asylum system grew and grew. Labour has pledged to get a grip of the chaos, but says it will take time to see the results. At the end of March this year there were 32,345 people living in asylum hotels, Home Office figures show. This was up from 29,585 when Labour came to power. It means 31% of asylum seekers were receiving asylum support earlier this year. Security Minister Dan Jarvis said the Government accepts that hotels are not the most appropriate place for asylum seekers to be housed. And in the immediate aftermath of the Epping judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said Labour had "inherited a broken asylum system". Dame Angela said the Government would "continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns" around asylum hotels. Imran Hussain, from the Refugee Council, told Sky News: "Nobody thinks asylum seekers should be kept in hotels while their case is being assessed. "It's very expensive. It's not good for the asylum seekers. It's isolating. It's an isolating experince I think even before the protests, with the protests it's incredibly terrifying for people. "And of course as we've seen for local communities, there's a lot of tension, some of which is being exploited by people on the far- right. So no one thinks it's a good idea." And explaining how hotels came to be used, Mr Hussain continued: " This isn't a planning issue, really. This is a failure of public policy. For 20 odd years that we've supported asylum seekers through, the system worked perfectly well. "We had accommodation for people without using hotels. But the last few years there's been a huge backlog of cases that's grown up because the previous government (the Tories) stopped making decisions on cases because it wanted to send people to Rwanda. "The backlog has meant the accommodation that was existing was full and people have had to use hotels."
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves' 'mansion tax' plan: What is capital gains tax, who pays and what could change?
In the latest furore over Labour's plans for property taxes, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reported to be considering charging some homeowners a levy if they sell their home and make a profit. It follows reports in the last few days that the Government is mulling over sweeping changes to stamp duty and council tax, in a bid to fill the £51billion fiscal black hole. At the moment, people don't have to pay tax if they sell the home they live in and the price has increased since they bought it - known in tax parlance as a 'capital gain'. But according to The Times, Reeves is considering changing this rules so they would have to pay this, if they made more than a certain amount of money. We explain what taxes people currently pay when selling property, how much they pay and what could potentially change. What is capital gains tax? Capital gains tax is levied on profits from assets including second homes, buy-to-let properties, stocks and shares and personal possessions. It is not currently charged when people sell their main home, which they live in full-time, but this is what Reeves is reported to be considering changing. It's important to note that it is only charged on increase in value or 'gain' made on the property or shares, not on the whole value. Everyone also gets an annual capital gains tax-free allowance of £3,000, so any gains below this aren't taxed. How much is capital gains tax? It depends on which tax band the person is in. If you are a basic rate taxpayer, with an annual income of up to £50,271, you pay 18 per cent. If you are a higher or additional-rate taxpayer, earning £50,271 or more, you pay 24 per cent. Take, for example, a landlord who purchased a buy-to-let property for £200,000 and sold it a decade later for £230,000 - requiring them to pay capital gains tax under the current rules. They would only pay tax on the £30,000 increase in value. If they were a basic-rate taxpayer, this would be charged at 18 per cent. This would set their bill at £5,400. However, if they hadn't made any other capital gains that tax year, they could use their £3,000 annual allowance to cut the bill to £2,400. Selling costs such as an estate agent and solicitors can sometimes be deducted. What is private residence relief? Private residence relief is the name for the tax exemption which means those selling their main home don't pay capital gains tax, no matter how much it increases in value. This is what Rachel Reeves is said to be considering taking away, or making changes to. What is being proposed? According to The Times, people selling their home would now need to pay capital gains tax at the rates described above - but only if their home was above a certain price threshold. It is not yet known how much a property would need to be worth, or how much the 'gain' would need to be, for the home seller to be drawn into the tax net. The Times said a threshold of £1.5million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. At current rates, a home bought for £800,000 and sold for £1millon by a higher-rate taxpayer would attract a capital gains tax bill of £47,280, before any deductions. Who will it affect? Older homeowners looking to downsize could be hit especially hard, as well as anyone who has lived in their property for a long time or experienced big house price gains. Those who have stayed in the same home for decades and enjoyed large property price rises could find themselves hit with a bill worth tens or even hundreds of thousands. This could prevent them from downsizing at all. The average house price in London in 1980 was £25,732, according to the Land Registry. Today, that has jumped to about £561,000 - though many family-sized homes in areas of the capital that have experienced gentrification could be worth double that. If capital gains tax was charged at current rates, a basic rate-taxpayer couple selling a £561,000 home could face a tax bill of £114,180, after deducting £5,000 for selling costs. However, it may be that a home worth that much could fall under the threshold. Stephen Perkins, managing director at Norwich-based Yellow Brick Mortgages, said: 'I can see a lot of families in London being caught with this higher tax bill. 'It may push more wealthy tax contributors to exodus the UK, which is already a problem following the Chancellor's last budget.' Why is it controversial? Some are terming the increase a 'mansion tax' which punishes people who have worked hard to buy a nice home. Harps Garcha, director at Slough-based financial adviser Brooklyns Financial, told the news agency Newspage: 'The Government's plan will have a massive impact on London and the South East, where many middle-class families have sacrificed themselves for years to build wealth through their homes. 'These homeowners expected to rely on that equity in retirement by downsizing, yet they now face being taxed twice, first through stamp duty and then capital gains. 'Rather than rewarding prudence, this policy punishes those who have worked hard and planned responsibly for their future.' Property experts also say taxing homeowners could would gum up the property market, as people at the top end of the ladder would be less inclined to move. This could increase the number of older people in homes that are too big, and young families could struggle to upsize. If people were less likely to move because of the policy, this might even limit the amount of money the Treasury might raise from the tax. Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at estate agent Knight Frank, said: 'Anyone with a taxable gain would think twice before selling, which would reduce transaction numbers. 'The Government seems to want a predictable flow of revenue that is skewed towards the wealthiest homeowners. 'That would be best achieved by re-banding council tax rather than introducing transaction taxes that change behaviour in the most discretionary part of the property market to the point they fail to raise what is intended.' When could this change happen? This change is reported to be an announcement being tabled for the Autumn Budget, in October or November. It is unclear when the new rule, if it was announced, would come into effect. One potential problem is that any announcement could create a rush of people trying to sell their homes before the new tax was put in place, to avoid paying it. When Rachel Reeves announced an additional stamp duty levy on landlords last year, this came into effect immediately to stop people from doing this. What has changed already? In recent years, both Conservative and Labour governments have made the capital gains tax allowances less generous. The annual capital gains tax-free allowance was £12,300 until April 2023, which meant it was typically only levied on wealthier taxpayers. However, radical cuts to the CGT allowance - to £6,000 in spring 2023 and £3,000 from April 2024 - make it inevitable that many more people will now have to pay capital gains tax. Rachel Reeves also increased capital gains tax for stocks and shares investors in last year's Autumn Budget. The rate charged increased from 10 per cent to 18 per cent for basic rate taxpayers and 20 per cent to 24 per cent for those paying higher rates of tax. This brought them into line with the already higher levies on property. The Treasury's response The Treasury declined to comment to the Daily Mail on 'speculation' about future changes to tax policy. A spokesman said: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8billion and cut borrowing by £3.4billion 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Spectator
Listen: Labour minister's car crash asylum hotel interview
Dear oh dear. As Steerpike wrote on Tuesday afternoon, asylum seekers will be removed from the Bell Hotel in Essex after Epping Forest district council was granted a temporary injunction by the High Court. The legal action comes after a series of protestors gathered outside the venue after a resident was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl – and the move sets a significant precedent that could pose problems for the government. On the airwaves to talk about it all this morning was Labour's security minister, Dan Jarvis. But rather than providing clarity, the MP's disastrous interview only threw up more questions… Quizzed on Radio 4's Today programme by Emma Barnett about where migrants would be housed, if not hotels, Jarvis seemed rather confused himself. EB: You still have asylum seekers here looking at the numbers, looking at the difficulty of, as the Prime Minister repeatedly says, smashing the gangs. But what is it going to be? Is it going to be secure detention camps, or is it going to be putting asylum seekers into flats and accommodation? DJ: Well, fundamentally you have to address the problem at source. So you have to stop people coming here. EB: No, no, I accept that. But I'm also, as you are, I'm sure, a realist. And these people are here, there are thousands of them and they are still coming. We know what those numbers are. So what are you going for? If you get rid of hotels, are you going for camps or are you going for flats? DJ: Well, the fundamental point is about speeding up the process of making decisions about people's asylum status. The problem that we've inherited is that the previous government basically stopped making decisions about asylum. The whole focus was on a hugely expensive Rwanda scheme, and that meant that there wasn't appropriate levels of resource going into the asylum processes. So we've shifted the resource that was being wasted on the Rwanda scheme, invested in it, in ensuring that we are now able to take asylum decisions in a much more timely and effective manner. It's still not quite answering the question. Barnett tried again: EB: What are we doing in the meantime? There's some time between now and 2029, which is the goal that you've set yourselves as a government. DJ: This government and the Home Office are absolutely committed to ensuring that we phase out the use of hotels. EB: For the use of what instead? DJ: Other, more appropriate accommodation. EB: What is that, though? Other, more appropriate accommodation? To quote you to yourself. What is it? DJ: The reality is that there's likely to be a range of different arrangements in different parts of the country. EB: What does that mean, though? There's only a few types of accommodation… Could you at least answer, just so specifically, if it's not hotels, as security minister? What is it? DJ: It won't be hotels because of the commitment that we've made, and therefore it will have to be a range of other more appropriate accommodation. Talk about clueless, eh? Listen to the clip here:
