Latest news with #Mumsnet
Powys County Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
Tech minister Kyle vows action on children's ‘compulsive' use of social media
Children could face a limit on using social media apps to help youngsters 'take control of their online lives', the Technology Secretary said. Peter Kyle said he wanted to tackle 'compulsive behaviour' and ministers are reportedly considering a two-hour limit, with curfews also under discussion. The Cabinet minister said he would be making an announcement about his plans for under-16s 'in the near future'. He told Sky News: 'I am looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps. 'I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online. 'I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I'm looking at really carefully.' Sky reported that a two-hour cap per platform is being considered, while night-time or school-time curfews have also been discussed. Mr Kyle said: 'We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. 'I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important.' He said he wanted to 'tip the balance' in favour of parents so they were 'not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids' hands'. Mr Kyle also said it was 'total madness' that some adults were able to use apps or gaming platforms to contact children online. He said 'many of the apps or the companies have taken action to restrict contacts that adults, particularly strangers, have with children, but we need to go further'. 'At the moment, I think the balance is tipped slightly in the wrong direction. 'Parents don't feel they have the skills, the tools or the ability to really have a grip on the childhood experience online, how much time, what they're seeing, they don't feel that kids are protected from unhealthy activity or content when they are online.' 🔒 Children in the UK will lead safer online lives as we've finalised safety measures for sites and apps to introduce from July. Tech firms must act to prevent children from seeing harmful content, and meet their duties under the Online Safety Act. ➡️ Swipe to read more. — Ofcom (@Ofcom) April 24, 2025 In a separate interview with parenting site Mumsnet, Mr Kyle said he was 'deeply concerned' about addictive apps being used by children. Speaking to Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts on Monday, the Technology Secretary said he would be 'nailing down harder on age verification'. He said: 'I think we can have a national conversation about what healthy childhood looks like online. 'We do it offline all the time. Parents set curfews and diet and exercise as part of a language and a vocabulary within families. 'We haven't had that national debate about what health looks like and a healthy childhood looks like online yet.' Schools in England were given non-statutory Government guidance in February last year, intended to stop the use of phones during the school day. But the Conservatives have been calling on the Labour Government to bring in a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Mr Kyle said: 'Smartphones should not be used routinely in schools. 'Now, there might be some classes where they are brought in because of a specific purpose in the class, but that has to be determined and it should be the exception not the norm.' He added: 'If we need to nail down hard on it, we will nail down hard on it. 'But please think very carefully about asking politicians to pass a law which criminalises by definition. 'Because if you pass a law that doesn't criminalise it's not a law that means anything'. A series of already-announced measures to protect children will come into effect from Friday. The codes of practice set out by Ofcom include requiring firms to ensure that any algorithms used to recommend content on their platforms must be configured to filter out harmful content from children's feeds. In addition, the riskiest platforms, such as those hosting pornography, must have effective age checks to identify which users are children. The checks could be done using facial age estimation technology, asking users to provide photo-ID for verification or a credit card check.
Graziadaily
2 days ago
- Business
- Graziadaily
Here's why companies need to publish their parental leave policy
When I started Mumsnet, I wanted to build a business that recognised what many parents know instinctively: that family comes first and work second. I'd left a previous role in finance because it wasn't compatible with raising children – the only women I saw succeed were either child-free or pretending to be. One even took client calls while in labour. Things have improved, not least because the pandemic forced a more flexible way of working. But millions of conversations on Mumsnet tell us that the system still doesn't work for families – or, often, for employers. That's why I'm pleased the Government has finally launched its long-promised review of parental leave and pay. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said he wants to 'reset the system'. At Mumsnet, we've long campaigned for a simple, cost-free step that the Government could take right now: requiring employers to publish their policies on parental leave. At present, there is no legal requirement to be upfront about maternity, paternity or adoptive leave. So, if you're applying for a job and thinking about starting a family, you face a dilemma. Ask about leave, and risk being discriminated against (more than 70% of employers and recruiters told us that women are penalised for pregnancy). Say nothing and you could end up with a policy that's worse than your current one. It's staggering that so many companies still fail to publish this information, even while boasting about perks like free fruit or dog-friendly offices. Some will tell you how much time you can take off when you get a new puppy – but not when you have a baby. It's also counterproductive. Publishing leave policies isn't just good for parents, it helps companies attract and retain talent: 84% of Mumsnet users say these policies matter when applying for a job and, when they're not visible, people assume the worst. As one user put it, 'I'd always assume that a company hesitant to share this offered the bare minimum.' Some employers worry about extra red tape, but that argument doesn't stack up. The majority already have a careers page. All we're asking is that they include this one crucial detail. And the Government's own analysis of gender pay gap reporting found most organisations find compliance straightforward. When we started campaigning for companies to publish their parental leave policies, fewer than a quarter of those in the FTSE100 published theirs. Now, it's more than half. That's progress – but it's still way too slow. Mandating publication would be a small, zero-cost change with a big impact. It would help level the playing field for women, reduce discrimination and support a fairer labour market. And it would allow people to make informed decisions about their futures. If ministers are serious about resetting the system, they could start by asking employers to be as transparent about babies as they are about beanbags.
Daily Record
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
'I've been invited to a wedding hours away for the evening reception - is it real?'
Scots love a wedding but it's unclear whether it's insulting or not a big deal to only be invited to the night part There is no denying the fact that Scottish people love a good wedding. From kilts and Ceilidh dancing to rapturous renditions of Runrig's Loch Lomond that will undoubtedly erupt at the end of the night, we know how to celebrate. If you are the one getting married, though, deciding on attendees is tough. Who's coming for the main ceremony? Are kids allowed? And what about that third cousin twice removed your mother really wants you to invite? Perhaps one of the most contentious decisions is who to ask to the evening reception, and whether the guests will perceive this as a snub. This is the situation of one woman who has taken to Mumsnet to ask for some advice. Taking to the platform recently, the woman shared her dilemma, writing: "An old friend had been telling me that I was going to be 'invited to her wedding'. Lovely, would be nice to go. "Invite arrived and it's for the evening reception after dinner. So essentially 8pm - midnight for a boogie. "It's about four hours drive from my house and on a working day. I could stay with my parents so that's not the issue. "[The issue is] do we think an invite to an evening reception is a real wedding invite?" Essentially, the woman is wondering whether to make the long journey to toast her friend's new life with her partner, or to politely decline the invite and not make the effort, because the evening reception doesn't merit it. The replies came in thick and fast with users airing their thoughts and feelings on the move. Some thought the evening invitation was "rude" and thought if the woman went, it would just be "awkward". "Has she kept numbers down for the main part due to money?" one enquired. "It's a big ask to travel four hours for the evening in a work night. I would probably decline." Another commented: "I think evening only invitations are cheeky for people that need to travel. It should just be for local acquaintances. If she actually told you that you were being invited then it's quite rude." A third scribed: "Wedding evening do arrivals are often kind of awkward, although I would go if it was near home and a work colleague or similar. Many of the guests will have been drinking for hours, and they've been there all day so they are all discussing how lovely it all was and there are you arriving sober at 8pm. "No thanks. Send a card, wish her the best, think no more of it." However, others were more accepting, and said they don't have an issue with rocking up to the evening do. "You're only an 'old friend' so that's usually standard for a evening invite," one reasoned. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. "You are an old friend so why do you think you should be invited to the sit down part?" another questioned. "If you don't want to go - don't go. I've never understood the outrage over evening invites." A more neutral user concluded: "I've no issue with evening invites. I think it's lovely to be able to include extra people in your day but if someone said I was invited to their wedding, yes, I would assume the day. "I wouldn't travel far for an evening do, though, or incur extra expenses such as hotel."
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Women aged over 24 banned from using gym during peak hours to make younger members 'more comfortable'
A gym in Lancashire has banned women over 24 from using it during peak hours in an 'ageist' policy aimed at making its younger female members 'more comfortable'. The ban will be in effect from 4pm to 7pm on weekdays - hours that are already part of the gym's female-only timings of 9am till 7pm - meaning older working women will have to workout alongside male members post 8pm. This was the dilemma of one gym member who highlighted the policy change on Mumsnet before the facility was identified as Bodies in Motion in Pendle by Writing on the parenting platform, the 36-year-old asked fellow community members what they thought about the new rule, adding: 'This is ridiculous, right?' She posted a screenshot of a text message from the gym that explained the facility will be 'reserved exclusively for women aged 12 to 24' from Monday to Friday between 4pm and 7pm. 'This update has been made in response to feedback and to better cater to our younger female members who require a dedicated, comfortable space during peak after-school and early evening hours,' the text read. The post sparked a flurry of comments as Mumsnet users questioned the gym's 'weird' decision to bar 'women of a certain age' from using the facility during hours that are already reserved for females. Since the gym was identified online, angry customers have accused Bodies in Motion of 'discrimination' - but the Lancashire facility has not responded to the backlash at the time of writing. MailOnline has contacted the gym for comment. One employee at Bodies in Motion told that the age-restriction only applies to 'really old women above 50' without elaborating futher. Others confirmed that while the new policy had been announced, female gymgoers over the age of 24 could contunue to workout during their chosen hours if their access pass worked. According to its website, the gym is billed as an inclusive space where 'everyone - regardless of their background or circumstance deserves the opportunity to thrive'. However, the new rules were branded exclusionary in comments under the Mumsnet user's post, as one person wrote it 'makes very little sense and seems ageist'. 'I don't see why a 12-year-old would be okay to workout with a 24-year-old but would it find intimidating to see another woman of say 30, or 45?!' their comment read. 'Just imagine if you had a 12-year-old daughter and you wanted to introduce her to it but couldn't because you're too old.' Weighing in on the debate, another shared that while it might make sense to reserve the gym for younger women occasionally, 'blocking off the time that any working women would want to use the gym every week day is bonkers'. A third added: 'I wonder if they're trying to attract the influencer-type crowd for some free marketing.' This was the dilemma of one gym member who highlighted the policy change on Mumsnet before her post received a flurry of comments criticising the new rules Another flabbergasted user added: 'Surely they can't specify age in this way? Either way, I'd be cancelling my membership and making very clear why.' Several women similarly advised the Mumsnet user to 'vote with your wallet' and suspend her membership until the dispute is resolved. The discussion spilled over on to Reddit where the policy was also heavily criticised. 'Girls and women under 24 need a safe space over 24?' one person's message read. 'Am I missing something?' A small group of people also sided with the gym, with one person suggesting there's a 'purpose in providing a space' just for teenage girls who might be awkward or conscious in front of older members. Their comment read: 'Not ridiculous at all - teenage girls collectively are a group highly at risk of stopping exercising. 'There's a purpose in providing a space just for them, just as there is a purpose in women only gym sessions in the first place. If the gym managers think there's a workable business case for making it work good luck to them. 'If it doesn't then they'll go bust.' Another said: 'If the gym can identify a legitimate aim - and they have done, "to better cater to our younger female members who require a dedicated, comfortable space during peak after-school and early evening hours" - then they are free to do it, and other users are free to cancel their memberships.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Woman Says Husband's Friends Are ‘Rude' After Repeatedly Showing Up at Their House Unannounced
"I don't see why I should keep ignoring my boundaries for rude people," she wroteNEED TO KNOW A woman set a boundary with her husband's friends: they should call before coming over She just prefers a heads-up, in case someone is indecent, in the middle of a task or already with guests "I don't see why I should keep ignoring my boundaries for rude people," she wroteIs it okay to show up at a friend's house without a giving courtesy call first? In a post on Mumsnet's "Am I Being Unreasonable" forum, a woman aired her grievances about her husband's friends repeatedly showing up at their home unannounced. She recognized the cultural and generational influences that could contribute to a misunderstanding, but after setting a boundary with them, they continued to arrive without warning. Twice in two weeks, her husband's friends — a man and his wife — have arrived unannounced at their home. The woman saw them on their Ring doorbell camera, and politely told them, "If you'd had called ahead, I could have told you we were out — give us a call next time." The woman said she was raised to call or text beforehand — just a little "is it OK to pop round in half hour?" message — in case the house's occupants weren't prepared, for whatever reason, to entertain guests. She has the same expectation for her guests, the woman wrote, and let them know. Then, after the woman told them to give a little notice before coming over, the couple again arrived without any warning. "My husband said it was awkward as I didn't let them in, but I don't see why I should keep ignoring my boundaries for rude people," she wrote. At the time, the woman's daughter was still in her pajamas, and the mother knew she "wouldn't be comfortable like that in front of visitors." She, in turn, had just returned home from grocery shopping and was in the midst of putting the food away. But, she noted, if her husband's friends had called ahead, she and her daughter could have prepared for company, as they prefer. The woman stressed the importance of a simple courtesy call. She could be indecent, in the middle of an important task, or already with other guests — it spares everyone an awkward situation, she noted. Commenters generally agreed with the woman, considering she had already told the couple she preferred if they'd give her a heads up they were coming over. However, users urged the woman to set her boundaries early with all guests. While she may have grown up with courtesy calls as the norm, others grew up in open-door-policy houses. Clear communication is a simple way to bridge that gap, one wrote. "I don't think there's anything categorically wrong with popping in to see people but you need to respect their feelings on it — you have made it clear you prefer a heads up," one wrote. Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
