A parliamentary committee has suggested raising the social media access age from 13 to 16 due to concerns about its negative impact on children’s health. The Telegraph has more.
The Commons education committee has recommended that the age at which children are allowed on to social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram should be increased from 13 to 16.
It said the next government should also consider a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools and a total ban on smartphones for under-16s.
Robin Walker, the committee chairman, said: “Excessive screen and smartphone use has a clear negative impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of children and young people.
“Our inquiry heard shocking statistics on the extent of the damage being done to under-18s, particularly those who are already extremely vulnerable, such as those in care.
“Digital age of consent checks are not fit for purpose.
“We heard no evidence demonstrating that 13 year-olds understood the ramifications of sharing personal information online and today’s report urges the Government to increase this age to 16.”
The Online Safety Act requires tech firms to ensure they have effective age checks to ensure children under 13 cannot access social media platforms – with fines worth up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to do so.
However, the committee said age checks were not robust enough and now was the time for a broader debate on the adequacy of the digital age of consent. …
The committee said tougher guidance on mobile phones in schools and how to manage children’s screen time at home was needed to better protect young people.
It argued that screen time was harmful to children’s mental and physical health, and both schools and parents needed clear guidance from the Government on the issue.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The only anti lockdown candidate standing that I am aware of is Laurence Fox and he will lose his deposit
He won’t if people vote for him. I know this is controversial to some but what have you to lose? A Labour or Conservative MP will have exactly the same pro-WEF, pro-Climate change, pro 15 minute cities, pro-lockdown policies, so why not vote for someone else?
Exactly.
Oh I totally agree
Just find it immensely sad and frustrating that support for mainstream parties on both sides of the political spectrum remains so high despite their obvious disregard for the support base they pretend to represent
The implication of the article is that support for the ULEZ will damage them at the expense of the Tories. While this may be true, I don’t see it as an especially good thing. Journalists from the political right need to come and and tell people they shouldn’t vote Conservative
As will the Lib Dems and Greens were they to win.
Exactly. There is nothing to gain whatsoever by voting for establishment parties- quite the reverse those voting for establishment parties are delusional fools who encourage the scoundrels to double down on their evil agendas.
UKIP wanted to talk about a strategy for all centre right challengers to come together but Reclaim and Reform UK are so far up their own backsides they refused to engage.
Aren’t all political parties a fair way up their own backsides? I’m suspicious of any party that didn’t firmly oppose lockdowns and fake vaccines from the start.
I think that Piers Corbyn is standing too….
I don’t know much about what his economic policies would be, but he was a star during covid.
He’s continuing to be a star in speaking out about the agenda – has a raft of unpaid ULEZ fines which he continues to refuse to pay.
Good to hear. I think I’d vote for him just for that.
You still think a by-election matters? Where have you been for the last three years? The entire political class of the Western world is moving in lockstep and gets its orders not from the party or the people but from the WEF at Davos.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy FACT.
MP’s don’t need orders, just a keen sense of self-preservation, some proclivities that make them suggestible, or an ideological mindset that aligns with Other Interests. Less likely to generate incriminating documentation.
Then why do they go to Davos and why can’t you know what they are talking about with the global elite? Why is every major political party rep in every country saying they same things? I grew up wathing the politics of the 1970s, MPs had al the things you stated but completely differing views of even members of their own parties. Now you could most MPs in any rosette and they’d be fine with party policy.
Wake up my friend, time is getting short.
It was an observation that we’d be lucky to find any document making this explicitly clear. People can easily prove to themselves whether their MP will represent them. I have and he doesn’t.
Why is a candidate considered mofe favourably because they are/were:
born in Hillingdon Hospital
educated at a local comprehensive
raised by a single-mother
in South Ruislip and Ruislip Manor
the first person in his family to go to university
a former charity worker
I can think of several much more important qualities in a candidate.
As a comprehensive schooled pupil myself I would think that (and several other of those traits) would make them less suited in fact.
“A policy that was introduced to create cleaner air in the city centre”
No, it wasn’t. It was introduced to force the closure of shops, convert them to housing and create a 15 minute neighbourhood in which there would be few or zero cars. Read “Absolute Zero” by UK FIRES, page 5, for further details.
https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/
Correct.
Absolutely, Allmouth.
Air “pollution” is at all-time record LOW levels. So the premise for this scheme is weapons grade bolix.
But we have “Conservatives” who conserve nothing, “Labour” who don’t care a fiddler’s fart about working people and “Liberal Democrats” who are absolutely illiberal and actively anti-democratic. Ony Gang”Green” stand out as having an appropriate name – albeit most of their policies are actually environmentally damaging.
Vote for ANYONE other than the LibLabCon artists. Or spoil the ballot.
A more emphatic response to the whole charade would be the best choice, but won’t happen.
Down with the Tories… but hold on, no… down with Labour even more! Let’s side with the underdogs… Vote REFORM!!! Oh, shucks, they’re pro-vaccination, where are we going to go from here? C’mon Nige, we need you to form another party, or Richard Tice to form a coalition with the Conservative party, yes that would be nice. But we’ve got to get rid of that pro-vax dogma somehow. You gotta be anti-lockdown, you gotta be pro-choice, you gotta be pro-personal freedom. Perhaps, just perchance, Westminster politics isn’t the best arena to satisfy all the above criteria. Maybe the punks of the 1960s were right all along, and maybe the hippies and beatniks to boot. It doesn’t matter which way you vote, you get the same greenwashed slime either way. I suspect Joseph Goebbels is turning in his grave as we speak, smugly and posthumously acknowledging the current establishment’s inability to match up to the best of 1940’s National Socialist Propagandists.
The woke, greenwashed left, as satirized and caricatured by Kier “What Is A Woman?” Starmer, was always doomed to face such a dilemma as this, as it has unthinkingly placed itself between a “rock” (the ULEZ scheme, part of the unchallenged Net Zero Sense agenda) and a “hard place” (the Labour Party’s supposed allegiance to those whom it represents – the struggling working class majority).
I’m not sure there is a shovel, nay, a JCB digger, large and powerful enough for Mr Starmer to dig himself out of the chasm he has dug himself by not challenging the ruling party and the prevailing agenda over the past three years.
The “Green Agenda”—- Central planning with the planet as the excuse.———– You can be sure that the fence sitter in chief (Starmer) who waits to see which way the wind is blowing before deciding if men are women or if children are foxes will squirm like the social justice pretend to save the planet parasite he is on this issue as on all others. ——-Starmer needs to be viewed through a microscope like all other parasites in the hope we can one day find a cure.
Dangerous Men