New Powers Aim to Curb Youth Radicalisation by Restricting Online Access

[Social Media]

 

Teenagers suspected of involvement in terrorism could face bans from online messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram as part of a new government effort to tackle the rising threat of youth radicalisation. The proposed measures, under the framework of Youth Diversion Orders, aim to prevent vulnerable young people from being drawn into extremist ideologies.  

 

Counter-terrorism police would be granted the authority to impose restrictions on the digital activities of minors deemed at risk. These restrictions would not involve a blanket ban on internet access but could prohibit visits to specific websites, online forums, or the use of messaging applications linked to radicalisation. The final decision on such restrictions would rest with the judiciary, which must determine their necessity and proportionality in managing risks.  

 

The Home Office has also confirmed that under the new scheme, officers could mandate participation in the Prevent counter-extremism programme. This initiative is designed to educate and rehabilitate individuals at risk of being influenced by extremist views.  

 

The announcement follows alarming revelations from MI5 Director General Ken McCallum about the growing number of minors engaging with "poisonous online extremism." He described the trend as "staggering," highlighting that under-18s now account for 13 percent of all individuals under investigation by security services.  

 

This issue has also drawn concern from the international intelligence community. The Five Eyes security alliance, comprising the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, recently expressed alarm over the increasing radicalisation of minors, including cases where young people have supported, planned, or attempted terrorist activities.  

 

A Home Office spokesperson explained, “Police will be able to apply to the Courts for a Youth Diversion Order, permitting them—in partnership with other agencies—to intervene earlier and to impose conditions such as engagement with Prevent interventions or restrictions on online activity. The Courts must deem these conditions to be necessary and proportionate to mitigate terrorist risk.”  

 

These measures build on recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has raised concerns about the decreasing age of alleged terrorist offenders. He has emphasized that many of these young individuals could be classified as vulnerable.  

 

Welcoming the initiative, Hall stated, “Good to see government statement on designing new measures to divert young people involved in terrorism away from arrest and prosecution.” His observations underline the urgent need for strategies to address this growing issue in a way that prioritizes rehabilitation over punitive action.  

 

As the government and security agencies grapple with the complexities of tackling extremism among minors, these proposed measures mark a significant step toward addressing the digital pathways that lead to radicalisation. The hope is that by intervening early and focusing on education and support, these efforts can help steer vulnerable young people away from the dangerous grip of extremist ideologies.

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-19

 

 

 

[nobodysfriend]

Restricting something to young people just makes it more attractive ...

Forbid it , they all want it .

[Scouse123]

Impractical to address, and impossible to enforce.

 

Try looking at the mosques etc, where a great deal of radicalisation is taking place.

[Cryingdick]

they are going to ban terrorists on Snapchat. Lol

[thaibeachlovers]

Just ban social media PERIOD. It won't be missed if they do.

[JonnyF]

The left will use any excuse to further control and restrict the freedoms and liberty of the populace. 

 

They hate social media, they want to control the information that the public receives through propaganda wings like the BBC. That's why they hate X and Musk so much. It's not a coincidence. 

 

It;s also why they went so hard so quick on the Facebook posters, lengthy jail sentences rushed through the backlogged court system within a week so shortly after Labour came to power. Trying to scare people into self censorship. It has backfired. 

 

I suggest the police get off social media and start doing some proper investigative work. For terrorism, lengthy jail sentences and deportation if they are illegals. Not releasing drug dealers early to lock up some Grandfather for clumsily expressing his frustration on FaceBook.  

[Globalres]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The left will use any excuse to further control and restrict the freedoms and liberty of the populace. 

 

They hate social media, they want to control the information that the public receives through propaganda wings like the BBC. That's why they hate X and Musk so much. It's not a coincidence. 

 

It;s also why they went so hard so quick on the Facebook posters, lengthy jail sentences rushed through the backlogged court system within a week so shortly after Labour came to power. Trying to scare people into self censorship. It has backfired. 

 

I suggest the police get off social media and start doing some proper investigative work. For terrorism, lengthy jail sentences and deportation if they are illegals. Not releasing drug dealers early to lock up some Grandfather for clumsily expressing his frustration on FaceBook.  

Yes indeed, it’s a fast slippery slope to 1984.  However extremely difficult to handle.  Where is the boundary set?

I agree, I started feeling uncomfortable with all the banning and censorship during Covid.  Never in my life have I seen such obvious “1984” “thought police” in action as then.  Scientists and doctors who previously were heralded as international leaders within their fields were not only silenced but lost their jobs/licenses, just for having a different opinion than what the government wanted.  This, IMO set a dangerous precedent.  
Obviously, the more you ban the more you will find resistance.  The problem is where is the line between acceptable or not?  Who makes the decision about where to set that line? Furthermore, who makes the decision about what is acceptable.  Once it’s acceptable to imprison the old grandpa for making his opinion heard but is otherwise a peaceful person, it’s not far away to the Gulag.

 

Never in my life could I have imagined that in our modern society where we are told to accept/embrace all versions of sexual behaviours, be frightened of addressing a person with the wrong pronoun, of now having to read about pregnant “people” instead of pregnant “women”, that our climate crisis is imminent etc, but not be permitted to accept/prefer personal choices when it comes to health care and neither be permitted to have our personal feelings about war/politics without being called a racist.  
 

where has civility gone, where we used to agree to disagree? It’s gone too far left, 1984 is here.