Dad of murdered boy speaks out as son's killer back in court for string of offences
The dad of a teenager who was stabbed to death in Bolton has spoken out after his son's killer appeared at Leeds Crown Court after an attack on a prison officer.
Reece Tansey was aged just 15 when he was fatally attacked with a kitchen knife in Walker Avenue, Great Lever, on May 4, 2021.
James White, now 19, was detained for 15 years for murder while Mark Nuttall, 19, was sentenced to six years for the manslaughter of Reece at Manchester Crown Court.
Reece Tansey was fatally attacked in 2021. (Image: Ian Nice) White was nicknamed the 'the Snapchat killer' after he arranged a fight with Reese via social media.
Yet White appeared in court for a second time in March, this time charged with a string of offences including wounding with intent, the unauthorised possession in prison of an offensive weapon, false imprisonment and affray.
His accomplice, Jack Rose, was up for affray, wounding with intent, would/inflict grievous bodily harm without intent, false imprisonment and unauthorised possession of an offensive weapon.
READ MORE:
The incident occurred while both men were at Wetherby Young Offender Institute and involved a prison officer, who had a razor blade held to his face by Rose.
White received a total custodial period of four years and 10 months, which he will serve on top of his 15-year sentence for the murder.
James White appeared at Leeds Crown Court in April. (Image: Martini Archive) Rose received a total custodial period of eight years and 10 months for the attack.
Speaking to The Bolton News Reece's father, Ian Nice, described the moment he heard that his son's killer was back in court: 'I didn't get a letter or anything, I just remember getting a phone call from the probation service warning me that James would be back in court and to stay off of social media to avoid seeing anything, my blood was boiling.
'I think it's disgusting he's been back in court, and he will never change his ways. He hasn't shown any remorse or change at all in his behaviour.
Ian Nice with Reese. (Image: Martini Archive) 'My concern is about public safety; he should be in for life for what he's done. I am concerned for myself and my family when he gets out.'
Ian went on to describe his son as 'so loving, he was funny and cheeky".
He said: 'Reece loved playing games and tormenting me. He loved life, he loved his people, and he loved his family.
'It's left a big hole in my life, people say it gets easier when time goes on.
"But when you're a dad and you've lost your son to knife crime, nothing can take away that pain.'
The CPS has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
20 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Inside the global race to shelter kids from the harms of porn and social media
Desperate parents like it a lot. Their children, not so much. Measures meant to bring safety and order to the digital Wild West, protecting children from the harms of social media and pornography, are coming into force around the world. In Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and parts of the United States — though not in Canada, at least not yet — lawmakers are pledging to protect kids from an increasingly dark digital realm where the flashy, outrageous and most addictive prevail. To do it, governments are banning younger teens from social networks entirely, forcing companies to proactively block harmful content and put hard-to-crack adults-only locks on sexually explicit websites. It will make for difficult dinner table conversations with the kids, no doubt. Try announcing to a 13-year-old whose every spare moment is filled with TikTok dances and Instagram stories that their access is to be revoked. The technology being used to verify and estimate the age of users — and which is emerging as the future requirement before logging on to Snapchat or Reddit or X or PornHub — has also sparked debate. It is pitting porn sites against tech titans and advocates of free speech against those of child protection. Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law What is not up for discussion, though, is that something must change. 'It's been 20 years that we've been having these discussions and every parent knows that there's a ton of inappropriate content that their kids are being exposed to — content that we use to all agree that they should not be exposed to before the internet and social media was around,' said Jacques Marcoux, director of research and analytics at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg. French President Emmanuel Macron tapped into this frustration after a teenage student with a knife attacked and killed a school monitor earlier this month . He blamed the shocking act of violence on the rise of overwhelmed single-parent families and the harmful influence of social media. 'We have to ban social media for those under the age of 15,' Macron said in reaction to the killing, adding that he would push for the European Union to establish continent-wide rules or, if they were not forthcoming, he would push ahead alone. 'We can't wait.' Australia already passed the world's first law that, by the end of this year, will block children under the age of 16 from some of the world's most popular apps — a message that 'until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age appropriate for them,' then-communications minister Michelle Anne Rowland in charge said last November. The ban could potentially reduce the incidence of cyberbullying, unwanted sexual solicitation and the cases of depression, self-harm and suicidal behaviour that has been linked to social-media use among children, wrote Jasmine Fardouly, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney's School of Psychology. It could also restrict 'positive social media experiences, such as social support and connections for marginalized groups,' she wrote in The Lancet, a British medical journal . The Aussies have given themselves 12 months to test the technologies that could be used to comply with the law. The obligatory age-verification or estimation process must be capable of keeping young kids out without relying on the use of official documents, such as a passport or driver's license. It's a legal fence that many countries are straddling in a bid to satisfy those who want to protect children and those who want to protect privacy. Britain's communications regulator, Ofcom, is forcing online service providers to conduct mandatory age checks if their platforms feature pornography and to take proactive steps, up to and including age verification, to protect children from online harms. French President Emmanuel Macron, right, has pledged to a ban on social media for those under the age of 15. Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has so far declined to pick up the Trudeau-era Online Harms Act. 'We invented age verification for pornography,' said Iain Corby, Executive Director of the Age Verification Providers Association, a London-based industry group. Verification was rather straight forward in the early days. A credit card, driver's license, bank account or passport would serve as proof of age, just like in offline life. 'As it became clear that we wanted to try and do this for younger people under 18, none of those things were available. So, the industry innovated and came up with estimation tools,' Corby said. Having a user flash his or her face in front of a camera for a few moments of digital analysis, is the most straightforward and probably the most accurate method available. The hiccup — that users are required to show their face — is a big one. There may be no qualms about doing to so to unlock a personal iPhone, but it is bound to make sheepish consumers of adult content think twice. Other services estimate age by checking a person's email against online databases to determine how long it has been active. The new regimes coming into place oblige the age-checkers to delete personal information as soon as it has been processed. For those concerned about leaving even the faintest digital trace, a French firm, BorderAge , promises total anonymity by estimating age through an analysis of hand gestures. The more fundamental question is whether age checks are really the way to go and, if so, who should do them. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a challenge to a Texas law arguing that age-verification laws applied to porn sites violate the First Amendment rights of adults. The website operators say that users' fear of identity theft or the exposure of their online predilections end up deterring them from submitting to the new standards. How Trump the dealbreaker helped create the Iran-Israel crisis Aylo, the Canadian-owned company that runs PornHub, the world's best known adult site, is locked in a fight of its own with the French government. Earlier this month, it blocked access to French users in response to age-verification requirements that the company said were unfairly applied to 17 companies while letting others off the hook. Service was restored this week after a judge temporarily suspended the government order until a court could rule on the legal challenge. Aylo says it supports measures that prevent children from accessing its content, but argues that obliging individual sites to keep out the kids 'does not work' and risks exposing legal adult users 'to privacy breaches and hacks.' Instead, it says user ages should be tracked on individual phones, tablets and computers. This would shift the onus — as well as the costs and legal responsibility — to tech giants Apple, Google and Microsoft. In the global race to rein in the internet and make it safer for delicate young minds, Canada is trailing the pack. Technically, following this spring's election, it's not even on the track. In early 2024, the previous Liberal government introduced the Online Harms Act , which included measures to criminalize online acts of hate, oblige website operators to remove harmful content and force them to adopt 'age-appropriate design' to protect younger users. The bill proposed creating a Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsperson to enforce the new rules and regulations. But there were no explicit measures proposing age blocks for mature or adult content. 'Just to put age-appropriate measures, or something of that nature, was not doing it for me. It's like saying, 'Regulate yourselves, do what you think is right,'' said Independent Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced her own legislation in the Senate that would have made it a crime to make sexually explicit material available to to children on the internet. She worried that the government bill left the possibility of imposing age-verification measures up to the future federal commission — a much-too consequential step to be left to appointees and civil servants, in her opinion. Her Senate bill and the government bill both died when the last Parliament was prorogued and the federal election was called. Miville-Dechêne has refined and re-introduced her legislation . But Prime Minister Mark Carney's government, which has put all of its focus on protecting and growing the Canadian economy, has given no indication about if or when it plans to resurrect the online safety initiatives. The more time passes, the more Canada lags in the common effort to clean up the internet for kids. 'The longer that we delay this, the further behind we fall,' said Marcoux, of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. 'It's true to say that kids in the U.K. and kids in Australia, they likely have a safer online experience than Canadian kids because of it.' It's also important for Canada to act in partnership with other nations in order to reach a critical threshold beyond which social media companies and pornography providers are forced to shape up or ship out. 'If more and more countries decide that this is not acceptable to feed kids with this,' said Miville-Dechêne, 'at one point they will have to change because we can cut the signals.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Is Talking on the Phone Dead for Gen Z? Not Quite
Fact checked by Sarah Scott I'll tell you how old I am without telling you how old I am: When I was a teenager, you had to call someone if you wanted to talk to them. We didn't yet have texting, voice notes, or video chats. Fast forward (muffled) years later, and my kids have any number of options when it comes to communicating with friends and family. Talking on the phone is usually last on many teens' list of preferred methods. As my 14-year-old told me, calling someone is 'awkward.' She's not alone: one study from Australia found awkward phone calls are one of the top three things 42% of Gen Z wants to avoid. Instead, my teen relies on video chats or voice notes to stay in (constant) touch. Traditional phone calls may not be the cool thing to do these days, but talking is actually on the rise, according to a new report from Snapchat, a social media platform the Pew Research Center found 60% of teens use. 'It's a misconception that the phone call is dead," says Ceci Mourkogiannis, VP of Product at Snap Inc. Teens are just changing what talking on the phone looks like—and there are benefits to that too. The Snapchat report, released in June 2025, says it's actually a myth that young people aren't talking on the phone. According to the data: Snapchatters, made up of Gen Z and Millennials, collectively talk for more than 1.7 billion minutes on average every day. That's 30% more than this time last year. Voice notes are a very popular way for young people to communicate. Snapchatters in the U.S. sent over 2.5 billion voice notes in the first three months of 2025 alone. That's over 650 million more voice notes than a year ago! It's important to note that, according to Snap, the data around talking includes both video and voice chats. Mourkogiannis explains meaningful connection happens when people communicate in the way that feels most natural to them—be that sending a Snap, recording a voice note, or hopping on the phone. 'We're thrilled to see our community is actually talking more than ever before,' she adds. Meanwhile, Alisha Simpson-Watt, LCSW, BCBA, LBA, the founder of Collaborative ABA Services, LLC, says she has noticed teens gravitating toward video chats and voice notes, and texting going by the wayside. 'For some, it is easier to communicate their thoughts and feelings by speaking,' Simpson-Watt explains. 'Also, voice memos add a layer of personalization to the message because it is like you're having a real-time conversation, except that you can answer when the time is more suitable.' Plus, video chats and voice notes can offer a stronger sense of connection helping to reduce feelings of loneliness which is on the rise, particularly among younger generations."Voice memos add a layer of personalization to the message because it is like you're having a real-time conversation, except that you can answer when the time is more suitable."Of course, communication is generally regarded as a positive thing. But do our kids stand to lose anything if they aren't engaging in good old-fashioned phone conversations? Simpson-Watt acknowledges that our modern world necessitates increasing reliance on technology, but points to the possibility that the lack of 'real' interaction may be feeding teens' social anxieties. 'Younger people tend to prefer to talk with people face-to-face on the phone rather than in person,' she says. Furthermore, Simpson-Watt has noticed that younger people can be more avoidant about making simple phone calls. 'For example, younger kids may be more hesitant to call and make their own doctor appointments, as it is more nerve-wracking since they don't personally know the person they are speaking to,' she elaborates. Teens excel at sending voice notes, setting up a video chat with multiple people, and ordering just about anything via app. But I can't be alone in wanting my adolescents to still be able to thrive offline in an authentic way, and without breaking into a cold sweat. According to Simpson-Watt, encouraging kids to incorporate phone and in-person conversations into their lives is key. 'Communicating with others, whether it is on the phone or in real life, is very important even with all the technology we have today, as communication allows us to bond and connect with others more personally,' she advises. Other benefits of communicating without the help of technology include: Sharpening listening skills Picking up social cues that may not come through via text or voice note Limiting screen time So, while video calls and voice memos are fun and trendy, encouraging our kids to engage in traditional calls and more in-person socializing as often as possible can go a long way. Read the original article on Parents
New York Times
4 days ago
- New York Times
The Smartphones Haven't Defeated Us. Yet.
Since the dawn of the television age, parents have struggled to limit or guide their children's screen time. But with the arrival of smartphones that can — and do — go everywhere and with social media apps that teenagers now use for an average of five hours every day, many parents feel a sense of resignation. The struggle has been lost. Parents who try to delay giving a smartphone until high school or social media until 16 know that they'll face the plaintive cry from their children: 'But I'm the only one!' To better understand the tensions over technology playing out in American families, we worked with the Harris Poll to conduct two surveys. As we reported last year, our survey of 1,006 members of Gen Z found that many young people feel trapped — tethered to digital products like TikTok and Snapchat. Nearly half of all participants expressed regret about having access to many of the most popular social media platforms. Here we present the second part of our investigation: a nationally representative survey of 1,013 parents who have children under 18. The overall picture isn't any better. We find widespread feelings of entrapment and regret. Many parents gave their children smartphones and social media access early in their lives — yet many wish that social media had never been invented, and overwhelmingly they support new social norms and policies that would protect kids from online harms. In our survey, 55 percent report that their children began to use a smartphone as a primary user by the age of 12, and 61 percent say the same for a tablet. Share of children with device, by age group 75% 67% 61% 65% Tablet 49% 55% 50 Smartphone 28% 25 26% 10% 5-year-olds and younger 6- to 9- year-olds 10- to 12- year-olds 13- to 17- year-olds Share of children, by age group 75% 67% 61% 65% 55% 49% 50 Tablet Smartphone 28% 25 26% 10% 5-year-olds and younger 6- to 9-year-olds 10- to 12-year-olds 13- to 17-year-olds Source: Harris Poll 'When I think about my child's experience growing up, I wish ___ had never been invented' 25 50% Mature online content 72% Guns 62 TikTok 62 X / Twitter 62 Snapchat 60 Alcohol 57 Instagram 56 Social media 55 Facebook 53 ChatGPT 45 Messaging apps 44 Smartphones 38 YouTube 34 Video games 33 Location sharing tools 26 Streaming services 20 Basic mobile phones 20 Large vehicles 19 Television 17 Newspapers 15 Radio 14 Bicycles 9 25 50% Mature online content 72% Guns 62 TikTok 62 X / Twitter 62 Snapchat 60 Alcohol 57 Instagram 56 Social media 55 Facebook 53 ChatGPT 45 Messaging apps 44 Smartphones 38 YouTube 34 Video games 33 Location sharing tools 26 Streaming services 20 Basic mobile phones 20 Large vehicles 19 Television 17 Newspapers 15% Radio 14% Bicycles 9% Source: Harris Poll Parents restricting their child's access to smartphones until they are around 14 years old Strongly support Somewhat support Strongly oppose Neither 33% 32 22 9 Somewhat oppose Parents restricting their child's access to social media until at least age 16 40 33 19 6 A law raising the minimum age for social media use to 16 from 13 39 31 20 8 Schools enforcing a bell-to-bell 'phone-free' policy 33 30 16 13 8 Parents restricting their child's access to smartphones until they are around 14 years old Strongly support Somewhat support Neither Strongly oppose 33% 32 22 9 Somewhat oppose Parents restricting their child's access to social media until at least age 16 40 33 19 6 A law raising the minimum age for social media use to 16 from 13 39 31 20 8 Schools enforcing a bell-to-bell 'phone-free' policy 33 30 16 13 8 Source: Harris Poll Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
