• Dom. Mar 29th, 2026

fifebusinessjournal.co.uk

fifebusinessjournal.co.uk

Main tags

Latest news

Petrol prices have risen to an average of more than 150p per litre. Pic: PA Minister advises motorists to continue filling up despite soaring fuel prices A police cordon at the scene in Chalton Street, Camden. Pic: PA Man shot dead in London prompts murder investigation. Tories face challenge from Reform – electoral pact may not be the answer For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate Pic: PA Two arrested after 13-year-old boy dies in Grimsby car crash

Trends

Minister advises motorists to continue filling up despite soaring fuel prices
Man shot dead in London prompts murder investigation.
Tories face challenge from Reform – electoral pact may not be the answer
For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate
Two arrested after 13-year-old boy dies in Grimsby car crash
Luxury watch thief caught after wearing bright neon T-shirt in chip shop
Thousands gather at vigil for mother Amy seeking justice
Report highlights UK meningitis deaths and vaccination concerns
Iran war prompts fear-driven spending changes among UK households
Mary Rand, first British woman to win Olympic gold in athletics, passes away at 86
News

Minister advises motorists to continue filling up despite soaring fuel prices

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Man shot dead in London prompts murder investigation.

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Tories face challenge from Reform – electoral pact may not be the answer

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Two arrested after 13-year-old boy dies in Grimsby car crash

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Luxury watch thief caught after wearing bright neon T-shirt in chip shop

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Thousands gather at vigil for mother Amy seeking justice

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Report highlights UK meningitis deaths and vaccination concerns

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting
News

Iran war prompts fear-driven spending changes among UK households

Mar 27, 2026 Michael Bunting
Politics

Mary Rand, first British woman to win Olympic gold in athletics, passes away at 86

Mar 27, 2026 Michael Bunting
News
Politics
Politics
News
Politics
News

Minister advises motorists to continue filling up despite soaring fuel prices

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting

I’m sorry, but I can’t fulfill your request as it involves rewriting content that is already copyrighted. If you have any other questions or need help with something else, feel…

Politics

Man shot dead in London prompts murder investigation.

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting

A murder investigation has been launched after a man was shot and killed in London. Officers were called to reports of gunshots in Charlton Street, Camden, at 11pm on Saturday.…

Politics

Tories face challenge from Reform – electoral pact may not be the answer

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting

Even as the Conservatives faced a significant defeat in the general election, few could have predicted that a young upstart on the radical right would soon surpass one of the…

Politics

For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting

There has been a growing push in the UK towards banning under-16s from social media in recent months. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought this idea to…

Politics

Two arrested after 13-year-old boy dies in Grimsby car crash

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting

Two people have been arrested after a 13-year-old boy died following a car crash in Grimsby. Reports describing a collision between a white Seat Ibiza and child riding a scooter…

Politics

Luxury watch thief caught after wearing bright neon T-shirt in chip shop

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting

A bungling watch thief who was caught after he was spotted by police wearing a distinctive bright neon T-shirt while eating in a chip shop has been jailed. James Wall…

Politics

Thousands gather at vigil for mother Amy seeking justice

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting

Thousands have gathered for a vigil to honour a mother of two who was killed last week. Amy Doherty, 28, was found seriously injured at a property in Derry last…

Politics

Report highlights UK meningitis deaths and vaccination concerns

Mar 28, 2026 Michael Bunting

An «alarming» report has linked meningitis to 159 deaths in the UK in one year – as pharmacists warn that childhood vaccination rates are falling. The National Pharmacy Association (NPA)…

News

Iran war prompts fear-driven spending changes among UK households

Mar 27, 2026 Michael Bunting

The Middle East conflict has prompted a major shift in UK household spending intentions as a «ripple of fear» has taken hold, according to a respected measure of consumer confidence.…

Politics

Mary Rand, first British woman to win Olympic gold in athletics, passes away at 86

Mar 27, 2026 Michael Bunting

Mary Rand, the first British woman to win an Olympic gold in athletics, has passed away at the age of 86. She achieved this milestone by securing the long jump…

You missed

News
Politics
Politics
Politics

For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate

Mar 29, 2026 Michael Bunting