‘Impossible' to make smartphones safe for children, Sophie Winkleman warns
Smartphones are 'impossible' to make safe for children and should be banned from schools, a royal family member and actress has said.
Sophie Winkleman, styled as Lady Frederick Windsor, warned phones can have physical and emotional 'consequences'.
The actress, known for playing Big Suze in Channel 4 comedy Peep Show, has previously leant to her support to a ban on under-16s from having smartphones, and was a supporter of strengthening the Online Safety Act.
'I think the impact of smartphones on children's mental and physical health is so immense and so multi-stranded that it's actually impossible to make them safe,' she said.
'They're designed by geniuses to be unputdownable,' she told an event hosted by the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster.
'Even if a child is only watching animal videos for three hours, they're still stationary, isolated and passive.
'They're simply consuming content, open vessels for other people's garbage often for hours at a time.
'The physical consequences of this vice like addiction range from eyesight damage, spinal damage, sleep disturbance, hormone disruption, obesity and manifold neurological impairments, which include the decimation of the attention span, giving rise to various ADHD like symptoms.
'The emotional and safeguarding harms are equally multiple.'
A survey of more than 15,000 schools in England by the Children's Commissioner suggests that the vast majority already have policies in place that restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day.
The Netflix drama Adolescence, which examines so-called incel (involuntary celibate) culture, has fuelled a debate about smartphones in schools in recent weeks.
But the Government has so far resisted calls to ban phones in schools.
Also speaking at the event, independent MP Rosie Duffield, who resigned from Labour last year, said the Government should be more receptive to findings on the harm caused by smartphones in schools.
'We share evidence, research, ideas and opportunities to engage with the Government and discuss policy,' the former teaching assistant said.
'This has been surprisingly clunky and difficult given the mounting evidence of harm and the growing level of concern from individual parents and groups of parents.
'Children need us to keep up the pressure on the Government that growth from financial deals with tech firms cannot be at the expense of our children.
'More and more parents and groups are coming to talk to me about this issue.'
Ms Duffield resigned the Labour whip in September 2024, accusing the Prime Minister of 'hypocrisy' and pursuing 'cruel' policies.
Relations between the Canterbury MP and the party leadership had long been strained, particularly over transgender rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
35 minutes ago
- UPI
Judge rules migrants sent to El Salvador prison can challenge removals
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem receives a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center CECOT with the Minister of Justice and Public Security Gustavo Villatoro in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26. A federal judge on Wednesday ruled migrants sent to a mega-prison in mid-March must be allowed to challenge their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Photo by Tia Dufour/U.S. Department of Homeland Security/UPI | License Photo June 4 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled at least 137 migrants sent to a mega-prison in El Salvador on flights in mid-March must be allowed to challenge their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., issued a 69-page ruling that the Department of Homeland Security had "improperly" sent migrants on flights from Texas to El Salvador's maximum security prison without giving them a chance to challenge their designation as "alien enemies." The ruling doesn't apply to El Salvador national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to the prison from Maryland and also didn't have a hearing. "Absent this relief, the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action," Boasberg wrote about the lawsuit brought by a friend of Frengel Reyes Mota, who was taken from the El Valle Detention Facility in Raymondsville, near the border with Mexico. Boasberg, who was initially appointed by President George W. Bush, gave the federal government one week to decide to take steps to conduct hearings in denying the government's motion for an injunction. "Defendants must facilitate Plaintiffs ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process," he wrote. The order didn't specifically say they must be returned to the United States. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court also said the government must "facilitate" their return because they were denied due process. But like the district judge, the specific steps were not given. The justices didn't determine whether President Donald Trump had properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act. "Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act," Boasberg wrote. "Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But -- and this is the critical point -- there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so. "Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations." ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told CNN: "The court made clear that the Trump administration cannot decline to remedy blatant constitutional violations and leave these men in a foreign gulag, maybe incommunicado for the fear of their lives." On March 15, Boasberg told the Trump administration to order the planes back to the United States. There were two planes carrying 238 deportees, but some of them may have had due process. The deportees were Venezuelans accused of being members of Tren de Aragua, which Trump has named a terrorist organization to enable his administration to deport them under the provisions of the Alien Enemies Act. "Rather than comply with the court's order, the government continued the hurried removal operation," Boasberg wrote in the 46-page filing in April. "Early on Sunday morning -- hours after the order issued -- it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the [temporary restraining order] into a Salvadoran mega-prison." Attorney General Pam Bondi said the two planes already were in international airspace and outside the federal district court's jurisdiction when Boasberg ordered them to return to the United States. Also Wednesday, the government acknowledged that a Guatemalan national in a separate case hastily deported to Mexico was returned to the United States, his legal team told CNN.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wildlife charities urge Labour to scrap ‘licence to kill nature' in planning bill
Leading wildlife charities are calling on Labour to scrap a significant section of the planning bill that they say is a 'licence to kill nature', as new data reveals bats and newts are not the main reason planning is delayed in England. The RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, whose membership is more than 2 million, said Labour had broken its promises on nature. They called for part three of the bill, which allows developers to avoid environmental laws at a site by paying into a national nature recovery fund to pay for environmental improvements elsewhere, to be ditched. Beccy Speight, CEO of the RSPB, said: 'It's now clear that the bill in its current form will rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall. 'The fate of our most important places for nature and the laws that protect them are all in the firing line. The wild spaces, ancient woodlands, babbling brooks and the beautiful melody of the dawn chorus – it's these natural wonders that delight people all over the country and support our physical and mental health that are under threat. That cannot be allowed to stand.' The charities released new research that suggested bats and newts were not the reason for delays in planning in 2024. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves; the prime minister, Keir Starmer; and the housing secretary, Angela Rayner; have repeatedly framed nature as a blocker to growth, blaming bats and newts for delays to infrastructure and housing projects. The data from analysis of 17,433 planning appeals in England in 2024 found that newts were relevant in just 140 (0.8%) planning appeals and bats in 432 (2.48%). Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said: 'Before the general election, Labour promised to restore nature. Under a year later, the chancellor is leading an ideological charge against the natural world despite it being the very foundation of the economy, society and people's health. Promises have been broken, and millions of people have been betrayed.' The leading British wildlife charities spoke out as more than 60 conservationists, including presenter Chris Packham, business leaders and legal experts signed a joint statement calling for the planning and infrastructure bill to be paused and for a meaningful consultation over part three of the draft legislation. Anger from environmental groups, ecologists and some economists has grown after Labour MPs and housing minister Matthew Pennycook rejected every amendment to strengthen protections for nature in the bill, which were put forward by MPs on the committee examining the draft legislation. These include a call for better protections for rare and vulnerable chalk streams and for all so called irreplaceable habitats which cannot by their very nature be recreated anywhere else in a compensatory scheme. British ecologist Sir John Lawton, who signed the joint statement, said the government should pause the bill for proper consultation: 'Legal changes of this magnitude should at least follow due process. A hurried competition for last-minute 'rescue' amendments to this dangerous bill helps no one, and will surely harm our environment, and our economy on which it depends,' he said. 'Normal, evidence-led, democratic due process is all we are asking for.' In a separate letter to Steve Reed, the environment secretary, the body representing ecologists said part three of the bill effectively allowed on-site habitats and species to be 'wantonly destroyed to make way for development' with the vague hope that it would be restored somewhere else at some future point in time. '[This] is quite evidently a catastrophically wrong approach,' said the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Bennett said the so-called nature recovery part of the bill was a misnomer because in reality it was a licence to destroy nature. He said: 'The Wildlife Trusts and others have offered constructive solutions that would allow the bill to proceed and achieve its aim to accelerate development whilst maintaining strong environmental protections. We're appalled that these have all been spurned. Nature is in crisis and must not suffer further damage. Much loved places like the New Forest could now be at risk – that's why we're now saying the misleadingly named 'nature recovery' section must be removed.' A government spokesperson said: 'We completely reject these claims. The government has inherited a failing system that has delayed new homes and infrastructure while doing nothing for nature's recovery, and we are determined to fix this through our plan for change. That's why our planning and infrastructure bill will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature by unblocking building and economic growth, and delivering meaningful environmental improvements.'
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Revealed: 5,000 English nature sites at risk under Labour's planning proposals
More than 5,000 of England's most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats are at high risk of being destroyed by development under Labour's new planning bill, according to legal analysis of the legislation. The Guardian has examined the threat the bill poses to 5,251 areas known as nature's 'jewels in the crown', as some of the country's most respected wildlife charities call for a key part of the bill to be scrapped. The areas at risk from Labour's planning changes include cherished landscapes such as the New Forest, the Surrey heaths, the Peak District moors, and the Forest of Bowland. Rivers such as the Itchen in Hampshire and the Wensum in Norfolk are also threatened by the bill. The thousands of protected habitats are locations for threatened British wildlife such as nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets. The bill is the product of the government's promise to build 1.5m homes to help address the UK's housing affordability crisis, and approve 150 major infrastructure projects, in this parliament. The pledge is key to Labour's plan to boost economic growth; however, a recent study suggests the government is likely to miss its new homes target. The government says the bill does not weaken environmental protections. But according to three separate legal opinions on the planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament, legal protections will be rolled back by the legislation, making it easier for developers to build on areas that have historically been protected under UK and international law. The Guardian has identified 10 protected sites that are under particular threat from development under the new legislation amid growing criticism of Labour's bill. Related: Ten jewels of English nature at risk from development and Labour's planning bill They include one of the last strongholds for nightingales in England at Lodge Hill in Kent; a wetland dating back 2,600 years in south Devon; an internationally important tidal wetland at Tipner west in Portsmouth; and woods dating back as far as the 17th century at Sittingbourne, Kent, part of the 2.5% of the UK's ancient woodland that still remains. These areas represent just a handful of the most protected environmental gems across England which include 4,100 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), all currently protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 71 wetlands protected under the internationally-binding Ramsar convention; 256 special areas of conservation (SACs) and 824 special protection areas, (SPAs) all protected under UK and international law in the habitats directive. Though numerous, these protected areas in total only cover just under 8% of land in England. Critics of the bill say ensuring they continue to be protected does not amount to a block on building new houses. In a legal opinion, Alex Goodman KC said the consequences of the planning and infrastructure bill as drafted were that any adverse impacts a development inflicted on the most protected natural areas in England, including SSSIs, SACs and Ramsar sites, must be 'disregarded'. '[The bill] thereby withdraws the principal legal safeguard for protected sites,' he said. 'This amounts to a very significant change.' Goodman has provided one of three separate legal opinions on the bill since it was presented by Angela Rayner, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government. All, including that of the government's own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), challenge Rayner's assertion to parliament that the bill is not a rollback of environmental law. Rayner has been threatened with a judicial review brought by nature groups if she does not 'correct' her comments. Goodman said: 'The only possible reading is that the bill will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided.' Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, said: 'The bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.' Key concerns focus on part three of the bill, which provides a mechanism for developers to sidestep current environmental obligations by paying into a nature restoration fund, which will be used at a later date to create environmental improvements elsewhere. Once the fee is paid, the development can go ahead even if it 'inflicts adverse effects on the integrity of a protected site'. Dubbed a mechanism to pay 'cash to trash', the bill contains no requirement for developers to measure what harms are taking place during the planning process. Irreplaceable habitats have no extra protection from development. Leading charities have called for this section to be scrapped entirely. Dr Ruth Tingay, co-director of Wild Justice, said the government seemed intent on causing unrecoverable damage. 'Imagine flattening an irreplaceable grade I listed building like the Royal Albert Hall, replacing it with karaoke machines in various towns and then telling the public this is a 'win-win' for architecture and music. Swap the Royal Albert Hall for any one of the UK's nationally important and protected habitats, swap the karaoke machines for a few pathetic tree-planting schemes, then tell people this is a 'win-win' for the environment and the public, and the analogy is brutally clear.' David Elvin KC, in a third legal opinion, said part three of the bill was regressive and potentially in breach of international law. Ellie Chowns, a Green MP, said there was a serious legal question with the bill because although the secretary of state asserted to MPs there was no reduction in environmental protections, the reality of the legislation was that the bill was in fact a rollback of environmental protections. 'We have a responsibility to protect the most important, the rarest and most in need habitats, like chalk streams, ancient woodlands, peat bogs; these jewels in the crown of our ecological heritage have their protections weakened in this bill,' she said. 'These are irreplaceable habitats, which by their very nature cannot be created anywhere else in some kind of compensation schedule.' A government spokesperson said: 'We completely reject these claims, and have been clear that our planning and infrastructure will not weaken environmental protections. 'The government has inherited a failing system that has delayed new homes and infrastructure while doing nothing for nature's recovery. 'That's why we will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature as part of our Plan for Change, unblocking building and economic growth while delivering meaningful environmental improvements.'
