Massive change to online knife laws with social media bosses facing huge fines
Tech bosses will face personal fines of £10,000 while their companies could also be hit with £60,000 demands if they advertise or glorify knives - much higher than originally planned
Tech bosses will face even bigger fines than previously expected if they advertise knives to young people, it has been announced.
Ministers have ramped up plans to hit web chiefs in the pocket if they help sell deadly weapons or glorify knife violence. Sanctions unveiled today will see individuals fined up to £10,000, while their businesses could also be ordered to pay up to £60,000 for each post shared online.
It follows calls from anti-knife crime campaigners to include tougher punishments in the landmark Crime and Policing Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. The Government previously proposed £10,000 fines for those who break the law.
Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson said: 'The kind of content that young people scroll through every day online is sickening and I will not accept any notion that restricting access to this harmful material is too difficult.
"Our children need more from us. That is why we are now going further than ever to hold to account the tech companies who are not doing enough to safeguard young people from content which incites violence, particularly in young boys.'
Patrick Green, chief executive of the Ben Kinsella Trust - set up in memory of 16-year-old Ben, who was stabbed to death in 2008 - welcomed the move. He said: "The portrayal of knife crime on social media has significantly hindered efforts to reduce it.
"Beyond merely normalising, glamorising, and desensitising young people to violence, it has often provided an illegal avenue for purchasing knives without adequate safeguards, such as proper age verification."
In February Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced a string of measures to save lives after a bombshell report highlighted horrific gaps in the law. Ms Cooper told The Mirror: "We have this crazy situation where there's often more checks for alcohol or for cigarettes or all these different things, and yet these are lethal weapons.
"And so that's why we have to change the law." For the first time a new police unit will target deadly weapons being sold on social media, while the Government is looking at compulsory licencing with tougher prison sentences for those profiting from misery.
Pooja Kanda, whose son Ronan was stabbed using a sword his killers had bought online, said her son would still be alive if the new laws were in plac e.
Under the new laws online retailers will have a duty to report suspicious bulk purchases they suspect could lead to weapons being resold. An alarming report by Commander Stephen Clayman, the national police lead on knife crime, found laws around online knife sales are less stringent than for alcohol, tobacco, fireworks or even scratchcards. He warned that a "grey market" for deadly weapons on sites like Snapchat and Telegram has grown.
His report highlighted one - named Weapons R Us - which sold blades at ramped-up prices through social media. Mr Clayman's report will call for a string of measures designed to save lives. The Home Office has announced jail terms for those selling knives to under-18s will be ramped up from six months to two years. These can be applied to workers who process illegal sales as well as the chief executives of a company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
State is ‘stifling criticism of Islam over fear of violent mobs', says Tory MP
The state is stifling criticism of Islam because of fears of a violent mob reaction, a senior MP has claimed. Nick Timothy, a front-bench Tory MP, issued the warning ahead of his Bill aimed at protecting free speech and the right to criticise religions, including Islam, being presented before Parliament on Tuesday. It follows the conviction of Hamit Coskun, 50, for setting fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. He was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Mr Timothy, who is a columnist for The Telegraph, is proposing a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill that would rewrite the Public Order Act to prevent it being used as a 'de facto' blasphemy law. His bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend legal provisions – which protect the freedom to criticise religion in specific circumstances – to the whole of the Public Order Act. 'The Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. The Act was never intended to do this. Parliament never voted for this, and the British people do not want it,' said Mr Timothy. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is especially perverse, since it makes a protester accountable for the actions of those who respond with violence to criticism of their faith. This is wrong, and it destroys our freedom of speech. 'We should be honest that the law is only being used in this way because the authorities have become afraid of the violent reaction of mobs of people who want to impose their values on the rest of us. 'My Bill will put a stop to this and restore our freedom of speech – and our right to criticise any and all religions, including Islam.' At Westminster magistrates' court, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kurdish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F---- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict.
The Sun
43 minutes ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
