• Lun. Mar 30th, 2026

Trends

The government is reconsidering its electric car sale quotas, one of its main green policies, following the largest drop in car production in the UK in 73 years. Ministers are exploring adjustments to the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate in light of the decline in vehicle production in 2025, marking a potential reversal of a key green policy championed by Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband. The mandate, introduced by the Labour government in 2024, requires car manufacturers to meet annual quotas for zero-emission car and van sales with the goal of phasing out new petrol and diesel car sales by 2030. The government spokesperson stated that discussions are underway to inform a planned review of the ZEV mandate to be released by early 2027, acknowledging the challenges faced by manufacturers. Despite the drop in car production, the government highlighted the increasing affordability and accessibility of electric vehicles, with the electric car grant boosting sales and the industry on track to meet its 2025 targets. One in four new cars sold last year was zero emission, representing a 25% increase from the previous year. However, production of battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid cars decreased by 3% to 26,629 units in February. The Conservatives criticized the government for initiating another review and urged ministers to prioritize innovation and consumer choice over ideological directives. Labour aims to increase vehicle manufacturing to 1.3 million units annually by 2035, nearly doubling the production from the previous year. Government to reevaluate EV sales quotas following largest car production decline in 73 years
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

The government is reconsidering its electric car sale quotas, one of its main green policies, following the largest drop in car production in the UK in 73 years. Ministers are exploring adjustments to the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate in light of the decline in vehicle production in 2025, marking a potential reversal of a key green policy championed by Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband. The mandate, introduced by the Labour government in 2024, requires car manufacturers to meet annual quotas for zero-emission car and van sales with the goal of phasing out new petrol and diesel car sales by 2030. The government spokesperson stated that discussions are underway to inform a planned review of the ZEV mandate to be released by early 2027, acknowledging the challenges faced by manufacturers. Despite the drop in car production, the government highlighted the increasing affordability and accessibility of electric vehicles, with the electric car grant boosting sales and the industry on track to meet its 2025 targets. One in four new cars sold last year was zero emission, representing a 25% increase from the previous year. However, production of battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid cars decreased by 3% to 26,629 units in February. The Conservatives criticized the government for initiating another review and urged ministers to prioritize innovation and consumer choice over ideological directives. Labour aims to increase vehicle manufacturing to 1.3 million units annually by 2035, nearly doubling the production from the previous year. Government to reevaluate EV sales quotas following largest car production decline in 73 years

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

Florist reveals why traditional flower preservation methods are ineffective

I’m sorry, but I can’t fulfill your request as it involves rewriting copyrighted content. SOURCE

Life sentence for serial abuser in Scottish Highlands

An individual who engaged in a pattern of violence for over three decades, which included throttling women, has been handed a lifelong restriction order. Bruce Buchanan, aged 61, committed multiple…

British diplomat accused of spying expelled from Russia

Russia has kicked out a British diplomat that Moscow has accused of spying. The diplomat had his accreditation revoked and was told to leave the country in two weeks. The…

UK faces food price spike as Iran war drives up fertilizer costs

This spring, the most valuable commodity in agriculture is not sunshine or even rain, it is fertiliser. By some estimates, up to half of global production of crops and livestock…

Survey reveals majority of Premier League fans against use of VAR, citing loss of joy in matches

The use of VAR is opposed by 75% of Premier League fans, a survey has revealed. The poll of nearly 8,000 supporters, just over half of whom attend more than…

The government is reconsidering its electric car sale quotas, one of its main green policies, following the largest drop in car production in the UK in 73 years. Ministers are exploring adjustments to the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate in light of the decline in vehicle production in 2025, marking a potential reversal of a key green policy championed by Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband. The mandate, introduced by the Labour government in 2024, requires car manufacturers to meet annual quotas for zero-emission car and van sales with the goal of phasing out new petrol and diesel car sales by 2030. The government spokesperson stated that discussions are underway to inform a planned review of the ZEV mandate to be released by early 2027, acknowledging the challenges faced by manufacturers. Despite the drop in car production, the government highlighted the increasing affordability and accessibility of electric vehicles, with the electric car grant boosting sales and the industry on track to meet its 2025 targets. One in four new cars sold last year was zero emission, representing a 25% increase from the previous year. However, production of battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid cars decreased by 3% to 26,629 units in February. The Conservatives criticized the government for initiating another review and urged ministers to prioritize innovation and consumer choice over ideological directives. Labour aims to increase vehicle manufacturing to 1.3 million units annually by 2035, nearly doubling the production from the previous year. Government to reevaluate EV sales quotas following largest car production decline in 73 years

The government is reviewing its electric car sale quotas – one of its flagship green policies. With 2025 having the lowest vehicle production in the UK since 1952, ministers are…

Minister advises motorists to continue filling up despite soaring fuel prices

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…

Man shot dead in London prompts murder investigation.

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.…

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

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…

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

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…