Labour has given up the fight to protect children online
The biggest risk to children online today isn't just the content – it's political complacency. The inertia after the cameras stop rolling is why Britain risks wasting the most powerful child protection framework we've ever had.
The Online Safety Act was never intended to be the final word. It was the legal scaffolding for a safer digital world – the moment Britain declared that childhood should not be collateral damage in the age of algorithms.
As the minister who rewrote and led the Act through Parliament, I knew we weren't solving everything overnight. This was always about laying a foundation that was designed to be layered upon and adapted as technology evolved. The test now isn't whether we passed a law. It's whether we're willing to finish what we started.
Children are just a few clicks away from adulthood and from the worst corners of the internet. That's the digital reality. As a mum, I see the urgency of this every day. We are the first generation of parents dealing with these issues – trying to protect our children from risks that didn't exist when we were growing up.
And yet too often, both tech companies and governments have treated online safety as an optional extra. I was driven to change that and in passing the Act, the UK became a global first-mover, not just on principle but on enforcement power.
Ofcom now holds the regulatory pen. Yes, it's a sprawling regulator with too many hats but when it comes to online safety, it has the money, the mandate, the time, and the tools. Its recently published codes are a massive step forward but they remain cautious and overly corporate-friendly.
It is time for Ofcom to wake up to the fact it needs to be visibly and unapologetically on the side of children, even when that makes the tech giants uncomfortable.
But enforcement alone isn't enough. Legislation without political leadership is scaffolding without structure. And this is where the current Government is failing.
The Act was designed to be layered upon – so why is this Government running away from such an important topic? It's ducking the next phase.
It should be tackling device-level controls, banning smartphones in schools and launching an evidence-based review about the age of digital consent. And that's just for a start. Ministers talk a good game but each day without action is another day our children remain exposed.
This is not about censorship or anti-tech scaremongering – this is about children. Real children – perhaps someone you know, or worse, your own – facing serious harm every single day. We protect them in the real world with seatbelts, safeguarding laws and age limits; yet online, we are still playing catch-up.
The legal framework is in place but now it must be built upon – boldly, urgently and without excuses. Instead, it feels like the topic is constantly being kicked into the long grass – as if simply 'looking at it' counts as action.
Take Labour's refusal to back a private member's Bill proposing a higher age of digital consent. Rather than engage with the principle or contribute constructively, they dodged the debate entirely. For a party that claims to prioritise child safety, their
reluctance to take on the tech giants speaks volumes.
This is not a fringe issue. It's a defining test of modern policymaking: can we create a digital environment that enables connection and creativity without sacrificing the wellbeing of an entire generation?
I remember the final stretch of the Bill. My son was only four days old when I was back in meetings with officials, peers and advisers – making sure the legislation couldn't be watered down and remained workable. I felt the crushing guilt of missing time with him on those first days but I also knew the guilt I'd feel if I didn't do my part to protect the world he was growing up in.
Because this isn't theoretical. Children are still being served suicide content by design. Still being bombarded with anorexia videos. Still being targeted through algorithmic systems optimised not for safety, but for engagement.
We need Labour to recognise that online safety is not a one-off legislative win, but a policy frontier that must be actively governed and continuously reformed.
Just as we don't set national security or public health policy and then walk away, online safety must be treated as a live, evolving challenge – one that demands cross-departmental focus, long-term investment and consistent ministerial ownership.
We created a minimum floor, not a ceiling. The Act was never meant to be the end of the conversation – it was meant to start it. A modern online safety strategy must evolve constantly: reflecting new risks, reviewing age thresholds, investing in digital resilience and delivering on our promises to families.
Anything less isn't just complacency – it's a failure of duty. And families across the UK deserve better.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers ‘abusing' anti-terror laws against Palestine activists
Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf has said the Government is 'abusing' anti-terror laws against pro- Palestine activists as tens of thousands of protesters marched in London. A protest organised by groups under the Palestine Coalition banner marched to Whitehall from Russell Square in central London on Saturday afternoon. Organisers estimated that 350,000 people attended the protest, with those marching waving Palestinian flags and chanting 'free, free Palestine' and 'stop bombing Iran'. Many protesters chanted 'shame on you' as they walked past dozens of counter-protesters, organised by pro-Israeli group Stop The Hate, near Waterloo Bridge. The Metropolitan Police said a person was arrested after a bottle was thrown towards the counter-protesters. They added that 'a group appeared on Waterloo Bridge trying to block traffic' following the protest, with officers intervening to clear the road. The demonstrations come after reports on Friday that the Home Secretary will ban Palestine Action after the group vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, after footage posted online showed two people inside the RAF base, with one appearing to spray paint into an aircraft's jet engine. Addressing crowds at the national march for Palestine in Whitehall, former SNP leader Mr Yousaf said: 'While we stand a stone's throw from Downing Street, let's make it clear to the Prime Minister: You try to intimidate us with your anti-terror laws by abusing them, but you'll never silence us as we speak out against the genocide that you're supporting. 'We're not the terrorists – the ones that are literally killing children, they are the terrorists.' A pro-Palestine protester said it was 'absolutely horrendous' that the Government is preparing to ban Palestine Action. Artist Hannah Woodhouse, 61, told the PA news agency: 'The Government, since yesterday, have said they're also going to start to try to proscribe peace activists who are trying to take action against the genocide – so Palestine Action are now being targeted by our Government, which is absolutely horrendous.' Ms Woodhouse, who is from London, added: 'Counter-terrorism measures, it seems, are being used against non-violent peace protesters. 'The peace activists are trying to do the Government's job, which is to disarm Israel. The duty of any government right now is to disarm a genocidal state.' Musician Paloma Faith told pro-Palestine campaigners that she would not 'stick to music and stay away from politics'. Speaking to crowds at the march, the songwriter, 43, added: 'Those who facilitate these crimes against humanity need to be made accountable, not those of us who are compassionate and humane enough to stand against it.' Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told protesters that politicians were seeking to 'turn people who protest against the invasion of Iran or the occupation of Palestine into terrorists'. Some protesters were carrying Iran flags, with others hoisting signs – distributed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission – that read 'choose the right side of history' alongside a photo of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Human rights group Liberty said banning Palestine Action 'would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied'. Sam Grant, its external affairs director, said in a statement: 'Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers in this way is a shocking escalation of the Government's crackdown on protest and we urge the Home Secretary to rethink. 'It's clear the actions of Palestine Action don't meet the Government's own proportionality test to be proscribed as a terrorist group, but the consequences for the group's supporters if ministers go ahead would be heavy – with things like wearing their logo carrying prison sentences. 'This move needs to be viewed in light of the sustained crackdowns on protest we have seen from successive governments over recent years, and the worrying fact that there are more and more non-violent protesters spending years in prison.' The Palestine Coalition is comprised of a number of different groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop The War.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kneecap Glastonbury slot ‘not appropriate', says Starmer
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not think Kneecap's planned Glastonbury Festival performance is 'appropriate'. He made the comments after Kneecap member Liam Og O hAnnaidh appeared in court on Wednesday, after being charged for allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. In an interview with The Sun, Sir Keir was asked if he thought the trio should perform at Glastonbury, to which he replied: 'No, I don't, and I think we need to come down really clearly on this. 'This is about the threats that shouldn't be made, I won't say too much because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate.' It comes after Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said she thought the BBC 'should not be showing' Kneecap's performance at the festival next week. Mrs Badenoch said in the X post, which was accompanied by an article from The Times that claimed the BBC had not banned the group: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' The Tory Leader of the Opposition has previously called for the group to be banned from Glastonbury, and last year Kneecap won a discrimination case against the UK Government in Belfast High Court after she tried to refuse them a £14,250 funding award when she was a minister. Kneecap took aim at Mrs Badenoch in their latest single, The Recap, released just before their headline set at London's Wide Awake festival in May, with the song mocking the politician's attempts to block their arts funding and the Conservative Party's election loss. On Wednesday, O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh at Westminster Magistrates' Court in 'Free Mo Chara' T-shirts. During the proceedings, a prosecutor told the court the 27-year-old is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on Israel and Palestine, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, is a 'wholly different thing'. O hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing at the same court on August 20. Following the hearing, the rapper said: 'For anybody going to Glastonbury, you can see us there at 4pm on the Saturday. 'If you can't be there we'll be on the BBC, if anybody watches the BBC. We'll be at Wembley in September. 'But most importantly: free, free Palestine.' The charge came following a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly shows the group calling for the deaths of MPs. In April, Kneecap apologised to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised'. In an initial post in response to the charge, Kneecap said: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves, this is political policing, this is a carnival of distraction. 'We are not the story, genocide is, as they profit from genocide, they use an 'anti-terror law' against us for displaying a flag thrown on stage. A charge not serious enough to even warrant their crown court, instead a court that doesn't have a jury. What's the objective? 'To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' Formed in 2017, the group are known for their provocative lyrics in both Irish and English and their merchandise. Their best-known tracks include Get Your Brits Out, Better Way To Live, featuring Grian Chatten from Fontaines DC, and 3Cag. A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC will be bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines. Decisions about our output will be made in the lead-up to the festival.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Cult of celebrity feels like a fundamental tension at the heart of the game
It is in the details that the truest picture emerges. Quite aside from the endless politicking, the forever-war with Uefa, the consorting with autocrats and the intriguing broadcast rights and partnership deals, there has been, not a new, but growing sense during the Club World Cup that Fifa doesn't really get football. There is something cargo-cultish about it, creating outcomes without engaging in processes. Perhaps that is inevitable with Gianni Infantino's style of leadership; like all populists, he is big on vision and short on practical reality. It was there in the expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams. OK: how will the tournament be organised? Sixteen groups of three. Won't that mean either lots of potential dead rubbers (one team from each group goes through) or opportunities for collusion (two go through)? Oh, actually, the four-team groups at the 2022 have worked so well, we'll go with 12 groups of four. Sure, but then you have eight best third-place teams going through which: a) diminishes jeopardy; and b) undermines sporting integrity by giving an advantage to teams in later groups because they have a clearer idea of what is needed to progress, again offering opportunities for collusion. No response, because all that matters is a bigger tournament equals more votes for the president and (in the short term) more revenue. One of the oddest aspects of the Club World Cup has been the way players are greeted on to the pitch individually, like swimmers before an Olympic final. At Ulsan HD v Mamelodi Sundowns, they may as well have gone on and introduced the crowd as well. Who needs this? Who wants this? Why does the first player out have to hang around for several minutes waiting for the 22nd player? For well over a century the two teams have walked out side by side. This has always been part of the gladiatorial ritual of football. This is the contest: one team against another. But as Fifa has sought desperately to improve attendances and stimulate interest, its focus has become more and more on the individual. That is why there was all that talk, much of it emanating from Infantino, about Cristiano Ronaldo potentially securing a short-term deal with a qualifier, and why qualifying was gerrymandered to ensure the presence of Lionel Messi's Inter Miami. But there is a potentially self-defeating short-termism to this. While the desire to see Messi is entirely understandable, especially as he enters the late autumn of his career, Inter Miami are sixth in MLS's Western Conference, their form having disintegrated since the end of March. From an MLS point of view, the ideal scenario would have been for one of their sides to beat a storied opponent, perhaps push on to the quarter-finals, generating interest in North America's domestic league. The best way of doing that would have been to have the best-possible MLS representation, but Inter Miami are in no sense one of the best three sides. As it is, none of the MLS sides won their opening game, although Porto's dismal form and Messi's dead-ball ability may get Inter Miami through anyway. It might also be pointed out that Auckland City are not the best side in New Zealand, nor are Red Bull Salzburg one of the best 12 sides in Europe, but the consequences are greater for the host nation, particularly when there is apparently so much potential for growth. The celebritisation of football is not new, but it is intensifying. When Paul Pogba returned to Manchester United in 2016 and, rather than speaking of the Premier League or becoming a European champion, said he dreamed of winning the Ballon d'Or, it felt shocking, a player elevating his own interests and a silly bauble above the glory of team success. But that has become normal. Improving his Ballon d'Or chances is one of the reasons Neymar left Barcelona for Paris Saint-Germain; even Trent Alexander-Arnold mentioned the Ballon d'Or as a motivation for joining Real Madrid (good luck with that from right-back). Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion The marketing of football is almost all focused on individuals. That's been particularly so at the Club World Cup, but it is true of almost every competition. Even the way lineups are introduced on Sky's Premier League coverage, with the players performing a fake celebration, seems designed to introduce them as characters. Yet there is a tension there. While individual players are celebrated, the increasing use of data means image and self-projection may never have mattered less. The stats will find the talent, even if the talent has no gift for self-promotion. At the same time, the best teams have never been so cohesive, so integrated. PSG provide a useful case study. For years they signed stars with seemingly little thought to how they might play together. Although their immense resources won them the French league, they habitually choked in Europe. Then there was a change of approach, the money was spent not on Neymar and Messi but on players on the way up who still had a hunger for success and who could play together. The result was the Champions League and, despite their defeat by Botafogo, possibly the inaugural world title in the expanded format. If it was conceived as a two-stage strategy – build the brand through celebrity, then win the actual competitions – it has worked to perfection; in reality, it's probably trial and error that has brought them to this point. At Real Madrid, meanwhile, Florentino Pérez still seems locked in his galáctico vision of football, insisting on adding Kylian Mbappé to a squad that already contained Vinícius Júnior and Rodrygo, resulting in imbalance and an expensive downturn in form. This goes deeper than transfer policies, though. This feels like a fundamental tension at the heart of the game. What, after all, is success in modern football? Manchester City for the past decade have been a much better football team than PSG, and yet they have nothing like the brand awareness. Is success winning trophies, or making money? Is it winning trophies or becoming more famous? Is it winning trophies or marketing the individual? The individual walk-ons only blur the lines further, suggest organisers who struggle with the concept that football, perhaps more than any other sport, is a game of the team.
