Been in the pipeline for a while.
I’m sure unrestricted social media has been harmful to kids (and not just kids) but an age-related ban will have implications for adults, who presumably will have to ID.
And how is social media defined? Could be extended to all discussions, all ‘hangouts’.
The potential opens up for policing of all discussion
Or is it already a certainty?
Hi @Evvy_dense - as you say the key is universal digital id, using “protection of children” as the means of achieving that. Just like the Online Safety Act, the Government decided that it was their duty to bring up kids and not the responsibility of parents … as if governments care about kids!
cheers
Hi Evvy,
Some serious stuff here from Fiona Rose Diamond on Facebook. (I had to borrow someone’s phone to see it).
Fiona Rose Diamond on Facebook
Total public surveillance. Total state secrecy. Absolute parasite immunity.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1bB9nEH8c1/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I can’t read it either but thanks Rich. I didn’t know the woman - but I do now. Covid campaigner and anti-zionist.
And omg, she has a gob on her, as the police find out:
The vid is on this page from her substack.
I think the stuff on surveillance and secrecy you refer to is probably on there. It seems she has been a tireless protestor and organizer since 2020.
Cheers
Under-16s to be banned from social media but no ban for illegal immigrant rapists. Exactly the opposite in fact.
’Completely UNACCEPTABLE!’ - Rupert Lowe SEETHES at missing ‘DANGEROUS’ migrants in Commons speech
Here is RT’s reporting of Rupert Lowe’s scorching attack on our system of law in respect of Pakistani muslim gang rapes:
https://www.rt.com/news/641730-uk-rape-gangs-report-lowe/
The failure of successive governments and police authorities to deal with this national disaster shows how much their claims of protecting children online is so much BS.
cheers
Hi Rich
I don’t see much to relate the two issues you highlight. Rupert Lowe paints an alarming picture,but he only seems concerned about rape when it’s committed, or allegedly committed, by migrants.
The numbers that were produced, that the Home Office denied keeping, don’t in themselves support the idea that “migrant rapists” is an issue over and above “rapists”. He didn’t have figures for rape but taking criminality, 700 criminals among 50,000 absconders doesn’t seem that high. How does 1.4%. criminality compare with the non-migrant population - for that he is willing to unleash hatred and, in some cases, violence on the allegedly criminal migrant community, 98.6% of whom are probably innocent.
If his problem is not with crime or rape, but with migrants, shouldn’t he pursue that without trying to tar them all?
Cheers
Here is a link to the Report:
haven’t read it yet!
cheers
Just one rhetorical question to pose:
How would the police and the politicians of all parties respond if the conclusion of the report was : “hundreds of zionist and jewish kids raped by Pakistani Muslims in the UK” ?
cheers
Thanks CJ,
It’s a must see and IMO it backs up Rupert Lowe’s speech in Parliament above as do many other good souls such as Jon Wedger, former Met Police officer and whistleblower:
Jon Wedger full story:
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/grooming-gangs-sadiq-khan-lambasted-ex-met-police-officer
This analyses the broader impacts of Starmer’s policies, journalism and free speech being of particular interest to this site:
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/06/18/starmer-social-media-ban-harms-free-speech/
" privacy is the foundation of all other rights.
Without privacy, there is no freedom of the press. Because journalists cannot protect sources.
Without privacy, there is no freedom of speech. Because every word you say is monitored and tied to your identity.…
— Glenn Meder (@GlennMeder) June 3, 2026 "
cheers