Starmer Expected To Ban Under-16s From TikTok, Instagram And Snapchat

Australia-Style Social Media Ban Coming To Britain

Keir Starmer is expected to unveil plans to ban children under the age of 16 from major social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat in one of the biggest shake-ups of online safety rules ever proposed in Britain.

The Prime Minister is due to announce the measures on Monday, with government sources describing the package as "Australia-plus" after a similar ban was introduced in Australia last year.

New Restrictions Go Beyond Social Media

The proposals are expected to go further than a simple social media ban.

Children could also be prevented from livestreaming on platforms deemed safer, while new rules would stop young users communicating with strangers through gaming apps and online services.

Ministers are also examining whether social media curfews should be imposed on older teenagers, although final decisions on those measures are not expected until next month.

Starmer Says Current System Is Failing Children

Ahead of the announcement, Sir Keir said the government was acting because parents expected stronger protections for young people online.

"As a dad, I know every parent wants their child to grow up safe and happy," he said.

"This is a choice about whose side we're on: families across the country, or a status quo that isn't working."

The Prime Minister added that the government would "call time on a system that's failing our kids."

Huge Support Found In Government Consultation

The announcement follows a three-month public consultation which attracted more than 116,000 responses.

According to government figures, around 90% of parents who responded backed a social media ban for under-16s, while more than 83% said the risks of social media outweighed the benefits for children.

The consultation also examined alternative measures including stronger age verification, restrictions on AI chatbots, autoplay controls and limits on addictive features such as infinite scrolling.

Critics Warn Ban Could Backfire

Not everyone supports an outright ban.

Campaigners including the NSPCC and online safety groups have argued that technology companies should be forced to make their platforms safer rather than excluding children altogether.

Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life after viewing harmful online content, warned that blanket bans could create a false sense of security and push young people towards less regulated areas of the internet.

He accused the Prime Minister of rushing the policy and said young people's safety should not become a political issue.

Tech Firms Face Growing Pressure

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said technology companies had been given "more than enough time" to address concerns about children's safety online.

She argued that even if some young people found ways around restrictions, tougher rules would still help change expectations among younger children and reduce pressure to join social media platforms at an early age.

If implemented, the plans would mark the most significant crackdown yet on children's access to social media in the UK.

SOURCE

Had Elon Musk not restored balance and free speech on X, this would not be happened. Sir Kier is beyond terrified the youth are going to be properly informed about the world. And he can't be having that, can he?

He wanted it to be age 18 but that flew into his vote at 16 idea

Didn't an Austrian guy do something similar almost 100 years ago..we all know how that turned out.

It's all there

"Ministers are also examining whether social media curfews should be imposed on older teenagers, although final decisions on those measures are not expected until next month"

So start off with older teenagers..that's up to 19 years old...then it's 25 year olds...then it's anyone they don't like...Nazi lieboir party...you can imagine it can't you...your 19 year old child and 2am in the morning starmers jackbooted storm stoppers smash your door down..sooner this fascist government is out the better

Social media is a scourge of the modern age with so many younger people completely brainwashed with bad advice and an addiction to their electronic devices, which makes them distracted to all else... including being able to have social skills or connecting meaningfully with others. History will judge the early 21st century very harshly (assuming the left doesn't ban history/historians at some point) on this front regarding children being allowed to endlessly use social media on smart phones for most of the day. There are many studies now that are pointing out that IQ levels are now falling having peaked in the Gen X demographic... wonder why. Remember that 2006 cult film Idiocracy? On the way folks.

49 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Didn't an Austrian guy do something similar almost 100 years ago..we all know how that turned out.

A covert Godwin's Law violation. Apparently everything somebody dislikes now qualifies as Nazism. The comparison is beyond absurd, although I confess I do laugh.

I visit this place for the same reason Victorians wandered around Bedlam Hospital to observe the inmates and emerge doubly grateful for my own sanity. You could have used Sturmer though preferably with an umlaut to underline the point ! Should have been 18 not 16 but it's all good.

45 minutes ago, baansgr said:

It's all there

"Ministers are also examining whether social media curfews should be imposed on older teenagers, although final decisions on those measures are not expected until next month"

So start off with older teenagers..that's up to 19 years old...then it's 25 year olds...then it's anyone they don't like...Nazi lieboir party...you can imagine it can't you...your 19 year old child and 2am in the morning starmers jackbooted storm stoppers smash your door down..sooner this fascist government is out the better

yeah like that's really going to happen - you should have a look at Thailand if you dare stray from the straight and narrow - it's pretty damn ugly - indeed world class in that direction.

8 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

yeah like that's really going to happen - you should have a look at Thailand if you dare stray from the straight and narrow - it's pretty damn ugly - indeed world class in that direction.

We are not talking about Thailand

Its OK chaps, calm down, under 16s can still view sir Kiers lefty state propaganda social media. Total clown show!🤣

"Left-wing social media network could be exempt from Keir Starmer's mass internet clampdown"

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/social-media-ban-bluesky-keir-starmer-new-internet-clampdown?fbclid=IwdGRjcAScnrBjbGNrBJyeIGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtVGKFR2YECZiJiMNJQcn4U-pUQP77d2xx3xqEIgnF-tLXAu-t4toEzEprvF_aem_Q3KalgSFI81zvIy6mS7-PQ

Edited June 15Jun 15 by SunnyinBangrak

Well Australia did a very similar thing recently, it didn't work there either!

No ban on lefty nutter app BlueSky?

What a surprise. 😀

2 hours ago, baansgr said:

He wanted it to be age 18 but that flew into his vote at 16 idea

Exactly.

Brainwash them with bbc and bluesky until they are old enough to vote.

This guy is a monster.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No ban on lefty nutter app BlueSky?

What a surprise. 😀

No ban on X formerly known as Twitter either Jonny.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly.

Brainwash them with bbc and bluesky until they are old enough to vote.

This guy is a monster.

How many British kids under 16 year olds use ‘Blue Sky’?

Maybe you got confused with believing Blue Peter turns its viewers in to lefties.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No ban on X formerly known as Twitter either Jonny.

Stop lying Higgot. X is being banned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How many British kids under 16 year olds use ‘Blue Sky’?

Well a lot more now that the competition is banned.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Maybe you got confused with believing Blue Peter turns its viewers in to lefties.

CBBC is more up your street.

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Had Elon Musk not restored balance and free speech on X, this would not be happened. Sir Kier is beyond terrified the youth are going to be properly informed about the world. And he can't be having that, can he?

No doubt there will be government approved sites for youngsters where they can learn and obey the government agenda, hate yourself, be ashamed of being white etc etc

Don't you have to be 13 + to have a Facebook account?

How is that working out?

I instinctively mistrust all governments, but this one in particular. The ability to monitor and control access to social media will be a very useful tool...

Edited June 15Jun 15 by JAG

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Stop lying Higgot. X is being banned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt

Not being aware of something is not lying about it.

Thanks for the good news.

X is a cesspit.

57 minutes ago, JAG said:

Don't you have to be 13 + to have a Facebook account?

How is that working out?

I instinctively mistrust all governments, but this one in particular. The ability to monitor and control access to social media will be a very useful tool...

Social media as a means to corrupt young minds is also a very useful tool.

Hence the rightwing outrage over sensible measures to protect kids from the likes of Musk.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Social media as a means to corrupt young minds is also a very useful tool.

Hence the rightwing outrage over sensible measures to protect kids from the likes of Musk.

Framing social media primarily as “a very useful tool to corrupt young minds” is an exaggerated, conspiratorial view that misses the reality.

Platforms optimize for engagement, dopamine hits, and advertising revenue rather than any coordinated plot to morally corrupt youth.

While serious harms exist — especially for heavy users, including anxiety, body image issues, cyberbullying, and exposure to toxic content — these stem more from flawed design and profit incentives than deliberate evil.

Kids don't need protecting from Musk.

Musk owns X, which has reduced heavy-handed censorship compared to pre-2022 Twitter, which is a good thing.

Maybe parents should take more responsibility for protecting their kids?

2 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Framing social media primarily as “a very useful tool to corrupt young minds” is an exaggerated, conspiratorial view that misses the reality.

Platforms optimize for engagement, dopamine hits, and advertising revenue rather than any coordinated plot to morally corrupt youth.

While serious harms exist — especially for heavy users, including anxiety, body image issues, cyberbullying, and exposure to toxic content — these stem more from flawed design and profit incentives than deliberate evil.

Kids don't need protecting from Musk.

Musk owns X, which has reduced heavy-handed censorship compared to pre-2022 Twitter, which is a good thing.

Maybe parents should take more responsibility for protecting their kids?

Suggesting I framed social media primarily as

anything is a departure from fact.

I mentioned one aspect of social media, I did not rank it against any other of social media’s many uses.

Opinions on Musk differ, I wouldn’t let Musk anywhere near my kids.

Starmers say he will protect kids at all costs yet he wont stop the grooming gangs raping kids. Everytime a scandal is brought up he delays or refuses to hold inquires of investigations.

7 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Social media is a scourge of the modern age with so many younger people completely brainwashed with bad advice

As with AseanNow or any social media platform the advice can be good or bad.
Imho X etc are essential for society as they provide a means of voicing concerns and reduce the ability of our governments to have the population into some unreal Truman Show style fabricvated 'reality' trance.

Would anyone have found out about Pakistani rape gangs without social media? UK establishment would not have addressed it unless they were forced to. Many such cases where govt have been held to account (also see Abba parties at 10 Downing St during cOviD).

People also run businesses and do investigative journalism on social media.
They only paitnt it as bad to old fogies as they're losing control over narratives (corruprion etc.).

The UK Establishment's problem (amongst many) is native white English etc. finding out how badly theyre' being screwed over.

Starmer is a total **** - FYI they're also planning to get in your phone if you have a UK registered Sim card. Don't be naive - Rules for kids are just the start of it.
Rules for thee of course:
https://x.com/thecoastguy/status/2066077149937766795
(And of course the BBC and other government licensed broadcasters would spin this positively to fool you - as they did during the nonsensical covid BS).

Anyone who trusts the UK establishment and/or this govermnment is a total moron.

Edited June 15Jun 15 by Tourist2

23 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

As with AseanNow or any social media platform the advice can be good or bad.
Imho X etc etc are essential for society as they reduce the ability of our governments to have the population into some unreal Truman Show style fabricvated 'reality' trance.
Would anyone have found out about Pakistani rape gangs without social media?

It was broken by Andrew Norfolk after a years long investigation and a front page story in The Times. Years before that Jane Heal and Ann Cryer compiled reports and wrote about them. Even The Manchester Evening News wrote about in the 2000's.

Nothing to do with social media, and especially nothing to do with Yaxley-Lennon, it was exposed in the good old "MSM".

From 2027:

"UK Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards"

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

It was broken by Andrew Norfolk after a years long investigation and a front page story in The Times. Years before that Jane Heal and Ann Cryer compiled reports and wrote about them. Even The Manchester Evening News wrote about in the 2000's.

Nothing to do with social media, and especially nothing to do with Yaxley-Lennon, it was exposed in the good old "MSM".

The claim is mostly accurate on the initial MSM exposure but incomplete—it downplays how authorities suppressed or ignored evidence for years, how local voices and whistleblowers were dismissed, and how later amplification (including via social media, campaigners, and figures like Tommy Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon) helped force broader accountability and inquiries.

news.sky.com +1

Early Warnings and MSM Reporting

• Ann Cryer (Labour MP for Keighley): Raised concerns publicly around 2002–2003 after mothers in her constituency reported girls being groomed and exploited by groups of men, mainly of Pakistani heritage. She faced accusations of racism from within her party and others; police and council responses were inadequate. This was covered in traditional media at the time (e.g., Channel 4).

  bbc.com +1

• Angie Heal (researcher, often referenced in reports): Produced warnings on drug-related exploitation and grooming in South Yorkshire from around 2002–2007. These were internal or local.

  en.wikipedia.org

• Manchester Evening News and local coverage: There were reports on exploitation in Greater Manchester/Rochdale areas in the 2000s, including failures in cases that later became major scandals.

  manchestereveningnews.co.uk

• Andrew Norfolk / The Times: His major investigative work (starting with tip-offs around 2010–2011) was pivotal. Front-page stories in 2011 and follow-ups (e.g., 2012–2013) highlighted patterns in Rotherham and elsewhere, leading directly to the Alexis Jay inquiry (reporting ~1,400 victims in Rotherham 1997–2013). He faced pushback for "fuelling the far right."

  en.wikipedia.org +1

Authorities (police, councils, social services) often knew details from the early 2000s onward via victims, taxi logs, care home reports, etc., but failed to act robustly due to fears of "racism," community tensions, or other priorities. This is documented in multiple independent reviews.

news.sky.com

Role of Social Media, Campaigners, and RobinsonSocial media did not "break" the initial stories—that was traditional investigative journalism plus local whistleblowing. However:

• Amplification and persistence: Once MSM stories emerged (especially post-2011/2014 Jay Report), platforms like Twitter (pre-Musk X), Facebook, and blogs allowed victims' families, EDL supporters, and independent voices to share survivor testimonies, criticize cover-ups, and pressure politicians. This kept the issue alive when national media attention faded between big convictions.

  bbc.com

• Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon): He and the EDL highlighted "Muslim grooming gangs" from around 2010 onward, framing it in cultural/ideological terms. He produced documentaries (e.g., The Rape of Britain on Telford) featuring survivors and alleged ongoing failures/corruption. Supporters credit him with forcing visibility; critics note he often built on existing MSM reporting, used inflammatory language, and in 2018 livestreamed outside a Huddersfield grooming trial in a way that risked contempt charges and jeopardizing convictions (he was jailed for it). He did not originate the national exposure.

  independent.co.uk +1

• Later social media waves: In 2024–2025, Elon Musk's posts on X massively amplified calls for inquiries, criticizing authorities and figures like Jess Phillips. This reignited debate, led to more scrutiny of places like Oldham, and pressured government responses—classic example of social media driving public pressure where legacy institutions had slowed.

  news.sky.com

Other cases (Rochdale 2012 convictions, Oxford, Telford, Huddersfield, etc.) followed similar patterns: local knowledge ignored for years, eventual police operations and trials, MSM coverage of convictions, with online campaigning sustaining outrage over sentencing leniency, repeat failures, and ethnicity patterns in group-based "on-street" grooming.

news.sky.com

Bottom LineThe commenter is correct that core national exposure came via Andrew Norfolk/The Times (building on earlier local reports and whistleblowers like Cryer), not originating as a pure social media scoop. MSM did the heavy lifting on documentation.

shows.acast.com

However, the full story includes institutional reluctance/cover-up elements that local victims, families, and campaigners battled for years. Social media (plus Robinson's activism) played a major role in preventing it from being buried, sustaining pressure for inquiries, highlighting two-tier policing claims, and recent amplification. Dismissing "social media" entirely ignores how it bypassed gatekeepers when official channels failed victims. Multiple reviews confirm systemic shortcomings beyond what initial MSM pieces captured. This isn't binary "MSM good, social media irrelevant"—it's a failure cascade where traditional reporting started the reckoning, but public platforms and persistent outsiders helped drag more truth into the light.

The UK Government (illegitimate since less than 20% want or support them) want to stop this - They want complete control:

Notable UK examples where social media (or citizen-generated content shared online) played a decisive role in breaking, exposing, or forcing major public interest stories into the national spotlight—often when initial MSM coverage was limited, delayed, or downplayed.

1. Ian Tomlinson Death (G20 Protests, 2009)

A New York banker’s mobile phone video captured a police officer striking newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who collapsed and died shortly after. The footage contradicted initial police statements claiming a natural death or that officers were attacked. It emerged via citizen journalism and was widely shared online (pre-widespread Twitter dominance but through blogs, YouTube, and early social sharing), forcing The Guardian and others to investigate deeply. This led to an inquest, misconduct proceedings, and major scrutiny of police tactics at protests. Classic case of citizen video bypassing official narratives.

tate.org.uk

2. Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle Scandal (2020)

The story of Boris Johnson’s chief adviser driving ~260 miles to Durham during strict lockdown (then a further trip to Barnard Castle, claimed for an "eye test") was initially reported by traditional outlets like the Mirror and Guardian. However, social media (especially Twitter) exploded with public outrage, memes, and eyewitness accounts, turning it into a defining symbol of "one rule for them." It dominated timelines for weeks, eroded trust in lockdown rules, and forced Cummings to give a rare press conference in the Downing Street rose garden. Viral amplification made it impossible for the government to bury.

en.wikipedia.org

Matt Hancock Kiss/Embrace Scandal (June 2021)

• Health Secretary Matt Hancock (who enforced social distancing rules) was caught on leaked CCTV kissing and embracing aide Gina Coladangelo in his office.

• Social media's role: The Sun published the images/video, but clips and stills went massively viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc., sparking fury over rule-breaking by the man lecturing the public. It led directly to his resignation. Later WhatsApp leaks (Lockdown Files) amplified further via online sharing. Classic case of leaked visual evidence spreading uncontrollably online.

  bbc.com

Lockdown Files (Hancock WhatsApp Leaks, 2023—but rooted in pandemic era)

• Journalist Isabel Oakeshott leaked 100,000+ WhatsApps from Hancock to the Telegraph, revealing chaotic decision-making, dismissive attitudes, and internal contradictions during lockdowns.

• Social media's role: While the Telegraph did the reporting, platforms amplified excerpts, quotes, and outrage in real time, keeping scrutiny alive on issues like care home deaths, school closures, and "following the science" claims. This sustained public distrust long after peak pandemic.

  en.wikipedia.org

Broader Patterns During COVID

• Anti-lockdown protests and policing: Videos of protests (e.g., Trafalgar Square, Clapham Common vigil overlaps) and heavy-handed police actions spread rapidly on social media, highlighting inconsistencies (e.g., BLM protests vs. lockdown enforcement).

• Public skepticism and data debates: Parents sharing homeschooling struggles, small business owners on furlough impacts, and early questions on masks/school closures/lab-leak ideas gained traction online before (or against) full MSM acceptance. Twitter was key for rapid dissemination of official data critiques.

  codastory.com

• General dynamic: Social media enabled citizen footage, whistleblower leaks, and viral pressure that forced MSM follow-ups and political accountability. Hypocrisy stories resonated because they contradicted the "all in it together" messaging.

  voanews.com

3. Sarah Everard Case and Clapham Common Vigil (2021)

The disappearance and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met Police officer sparked huge social media campaigns (#SarahEverard, vigils organized via Facebook/Twitter/Instagram). The vigil itself saw heavy police intervention (arrests, clashes), with videos and photos of women being pinned down spreading instantly online. This fueled national debate on violence against women, police accountability, and lockdown policing. Social media sustained pressure for inquiries and reforms far beyond initial reporting.

hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

Other Patterns and Broader Examples

• Citizen footage in riots/attacks: London 7/7 bombings (2005) saw some of the first images from inside trains via passenger phones shared widely. Similar dynamics in 2011 riots, where social media both organized events and documented them in real time.

  ebsco.com

• Grooming gangs (ongoing amplification):

  While Andrew Norfolk/The Times did pivotal early investigative work (as the other commenter noted), social media— including campaigns by victims’ families, bloggers, and figures like Tommy Robinson—kept survivor stories, court reporting gaps, and institutional failures in the public eye during lulls. Recent waves (e.g., Musk/X amplification) have driven fresh inquiries and political pressure.

• General trend: Platforms allow first-on-scene uploads, whistleblower leaks, and viral pressure that force MSM pickup. UK examples often involve police misconduct, government hypocrisy during crises, or protest policing where citizen content challenges official lines.

  reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

The reality is symbiotic, not zero-sum. MSM often provides depth, verification, and resources for long investigations. Social media excels at speed, raw evidence (videos/photos), bypassing gatekeepers, and sustaining public pressure—especially on stories authorities or legacy outlets might prefer to soften or ignore initially.

Many "MSM breakthroughs" now rely on tips, footage, or outrage originating online.

Dismissing social media’s role entirely ignores how it has democratized exposure in the public interest, for better (accountability) and sometimes worse (misinfo).
The grooming scandals show both: MSM documentation + social persistence = harder-to-ignore reckoning.

Anyone who trusts the UK government is a ******* idiot

Edited June 15Jun 15 by Tourist2

19 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

From 2027:

"UK Adults can still access social media through age checks like facial recognition, digital IDs, passports and credit cards"

The claim is mostly accurate on the initial MSM exposure but incomplete—it downplays how authorities suppressed or ignored evidence for years, how local voices and whistleblowers were dismissed, and how later amplification (including via social media, campaigners, and figures like Tommy Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon) helped force broader accountability and inquiries.

news.sky.com +1

Early Warnings and MSM Reporting

• Ann Cryer (Labour MP for Keighley): Raised concerns publicly around 2002–2003 after mothers in her constituency reported girls being groomed and exploited by groups of men, mainly of Pakistani heritage. She faced accusations of racism from within her party and others; police and council responses were inadequate. This was covered in traditional media at the time (e.g., Channel 4).

  bbc.com +1

• Angie Heal (researcher, often referenced in reports): Produced warnings on drug-related exploitation and grooming in South Yorkshire from around 2002–2007. These were internal or local.

  en.wikipedia.org

• Manchester Evening News and local coverage: There were reports on exploitation in Greater Manchester/Rochdale areas in the 2000s, including failures in cases that later became major scandals.

  manchestereveningnews.co.uk

• Andrew Norfolk / The Times: His major investigative work (starting with tip-offs around 2010–2011) was pivotal. Front-page stories in 2011 and follow-ups (e.g., 2012–2013) highlighted patterns in Rotherham and elsewhere, leading directly to the Alexis Jay inquiry (reporting ~1,400 victims in Rotherham 1997–2013). He faced pushback for "fuelling the far right."

  en.wikipedia.org +1

Authorities (police, councils, social services) often knew details from the early 2000s onward via victims, taxi logs, care home reports, etc., but failed to act robustly due to fears of "racism," community tensions, or other priorities. This is documented in multiple independent reviews.

news.sky.com

Role of Social Media, Campaigners, and RobinsonSocial media did not "break" the initial stories—that was traditional investigative journalism plus local whistleblowing. However:

• Amplification and persistence: Once MSM stories emerged (especially post-2011/2014 Jay Report), platforms like Twitter (pre-Musk X), Facebook, and blogs allowed victims' families, EDL supporters, and independent voices to share survivor testimonies, criticize cover-ups, and pressure politicians. This kept the issue alive when national media attention faded between big convictions.

  bbc.com

• Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon): He and the EDL highlighted "Muslim grooming gangs" from around 2010 onward, framing it in cultural/ideological terms. He produced documentaries (e.g., The Rape of Britain on Telford) featuring survivors and alleged ongoing failures/corruption. Supporters credit him with forcing visibility; critics note he often built on existing MSM reporting, used inflammatory language, and in 2018 livestreamed outside a Huddersfield grooming trial in a way that risked contempt charges and jeopardizing convictions (he was jailed for it). He did not originate the national exposure.

  independent.co.uk +1

• Later social media waves: In 2024–2025, Elon Musk's posts on X massively amplified calls for inquiries, criticizing authorities and figures like Jess Phillips. This reignited debate, led to more scrutiny of places like Oldham, and pressured government responses—classic example of social media driving public pressure where legacy institutions had slowed.

  news.sky.com

Other cases (Rochdale 2012 convictions, Oxford, Telford, Huddersfield, etc.) followed similar patterns: local knowledge ignored for years, eventual police operations and trials, MSM coverage of convictions, with online campaigning sustaining outrage over sentencing leniency, repeat failures, and ethnicity patterns in group-based "on-street" grooming.

news.sky.com

Bottom LineThe commenter is correct that core national exposure came via Andrew Norfolk/The Times (building on earlier local reports and whistleblowers like Cryer), not originating as a pure social media scoop. MSM did the heavy lifting on documentation.

shows.acast.com

However, the full story includes institutional reluctance/cover-up elements that local victims, families, and campaigners battled for years. Social media (plus Robinson's activism) played a major role in preventing it from being buried, sustaining pressure for inquiries, highlighting two-tier policing claims, and recent amplification. Dismissing "social media" entirely ignores how it bypassed gatekeepers when official channels failed victims. Multiple reviews confirm systemic shortcomings beyond what initial MSM pieces captured. This isn't binary "MSM good, social media irrelevant"—it's a failure cascade where traditional reporting started the reckoning, but public platforms and persistent outsiders helped drag more truth into the light.

14 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

The UK Government (illegitimate since less than 20% want or support them) want to stop this - They want complete control:

Notable UK examples where social media (or citizen-generated content shared online) played a decisive role in breaking, exposing, or forcing major public interest stories into the national spotlight—often when initial MSM coverage was limited, delayed, or downplayed.

1. Ian Tomlinson Death (G20 Protests, 2009)

A New York banker’s mobile phone video captured a police officer striking newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who collapsed and died shortly after. The footage contradicted initial police statements claiming a natural death or that officers were attacked. It emerged via citizen journalism and was widely shared online (pre-widespread Twitter dominance but through blogs, YouTube, and early social sharing), forcing The Guardian and others to investigate deeply. This led to an inquest, misconduct proceedings, and major scrutiny of police tactics at protests. Classic case of citizen video bypassing official narratives.

tate.org.uk

2. Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle Scandal (2020)

The story of Boris Johnson’s chief adviser driving ~260 miles to Durham during strict lockdown (then a further trip to Barnard Castle, claimed for an "eye test") was initially reported by traditional outlets like the Mirror and Guardian. However, social media (especially Twitter) exploded with public outrage, memes, and eyewitness accounts, turning it into a defining symbol of "one rule for them." It dominated timelines for weeks, eroded trust in lockdown rules, and forced Cummings to give a rare press conference in the Downing Street rose garden. Viral amplification made it impossible for the government to bury.

en.wikipedia.org

Matt Hancock Kiss/Embrace Scandal (June 2021)

• Health Secretary Matt Hancock (who enforced social distancing rules) was caught on leaked CCTV kissing and embracing aide Gina Coladangelo in his office.

• Social media's role: The Sun published the images/video, but clips and stills went massively viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc., sparking fury over rule-breaking by the man lecturing the public. It led directly to his resignation. Later WhatsApp leaks (Lockdown Files) amplified further via online sharing. Classic case of leaked visual evidence spreading uncontrollably online.

  bbc.com

Lockdown Files (Hancock WhatsApp Leaks, 2023—but rooted in pandemic era)

• Journalist Isabel Oakeshott leaked 100,000+ WhatsApps from Hancock to the Telegraph, revealing chaotic decision-making, dismissive attitudes, and internal contradictions during lockdowns.

• Social media's role: While the Telegraph did the reporting, platforms amplified excerpts, quotes, and outrage in real time, keeping scrutiny alive on issues like care home deaths, school closures, and "following the science" claims. This sustained public distrust long after peak pandemic.

  en.wikipedia.org

Broader Patterns During COVID

• Anti-lockdown protests and policing: Videos of protests (e.g., Trafalgar Square, Clapham Common vigil overlaps) and heavy-handed police actions spread rapidly on social media, highlighting inconsistencies (e.g., BLM protests vs. lockdown enforcement).

• Public skepticism and data debates: Parents sharing homeschooling struggles, small business owners on furlough impacts, and early questions on masks/school closures/lab-leak ideas gained traction online before (or against) full MSM acceptance. Twitter was key for rapid dissemination of official data critiques.

  codastory.com

• General dynamic: Social media enabled citizen footage, whistleblower leaks, and viral pressure that forced MSM follow-ups and political accountability. Hypocrisy stories resonated because they contradicted the "all in it together" messaging.

  voanews.com

3. Sarah Everard Case and Clapham Common Vigil (2021)

The disappearance and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met Police officer sparked huge social media campaigns (#SarahEverard, vigils organized via Facebook/Twitter/Instagram). The vigil itself saw heavy police intervention (arrests, clashes), with videos and photos of women being pinned down spreading instantly online. This fueled national debate on violence against women, police accountability, and lockdown policing. Social media sustained pressure for inquiries and reforms far beyond initial reporting.

hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

Other Patterns and Broader Examples

• Citizen footage in riots/attacks: London 7/7 bombings (2005) saw some of the first images from inside trains via passenger phones shared widely. Similar dynamics in 2011 riots, where social media both organized events and documented them in real time.

  ebsco.com

• Grooming gangs (ongoing amplification):

  While Andrew Norfolk/The Times did pivotal early investigative work (as the other commenter noted), social media— including campaigns by victims’ families, bloggers, and figures like Tommy Robinson—kept survivor stories, court reporting gaps, and institutional failures in the public eye during lulls. Recent waves (e.g., Musk/X amplification) have driven fresh inquiries and political pressure.

• General trend: Platforms allow first-on-scene uploads, whistleblower leaks, and viral pressure that force MSM pickup. UK examples often involve police misconduct, government hypocrisy during crises, or protest policing where citizen content challenges official lines.

  reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

The reality is symbiotic, not zero-sum. MSM often provides depth, verification, and resources for long investigations. Social media excels at speed, raw evidence (videos/photos), bypassing gatekeepers, and sustaining public pressure—especially on stories authorities or legacy outlets might prefer to soften or ignore initially.

Many "MSM breakthroughs" now rely on tips, footage, or outrage originating online.

Dismissing social media’s role entirely ignores how it has democratized exposure in the public interest, for better (accountability) and sometimes worse (misinfo).
The grooming scandals show both: MSM documentation + social persistence = harder-to-ignore reckoning.

Anyone who trusts the UK government is a ******* idiot

Thanks, I can also ask ChatGPT to write my replies. But until that day I'll just read and engage with people who can write their own opinions.

23 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

good old "MSM".

Social (citizen) media is needed to keep these MSM ****s honest.
Thyre' OK for sport but generally can't be trusted.

Here are some of the biggest, most impactful UK mainstream media reporting failures, exaggerations, misleading narratives and outright bull**** from the past few years

1. Early COVID Modelling & "Follow the Science" Doomsday Projections (Ongoing into 2021–2022)Imperial College models (e.g., Neil Ferguson) predicting hundreds of thousands of UK deaths without lockdowns were widely amplified by BBC, Guardian, and others as near-certain. "Two weeks to flatten the curve" and repeated waves of alarmist projections often didn't match outcomes, especially post-vaccines/Omicron. Critics later highlighted over-reliance on worst-case scenarios, data issues, and policy influence. Many outlets treated dissenting scientists (e.g., Great Barrington) as fringe. Not outright "lies," but selective hype of models that proved overly pessimistic contributed to prolonged restrictions.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Also see 'safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective'

2. Partygate Coverage (2021–2023)MSM (Guardian, BBC, Times, Mirror, etc.) relentlessly pursued and amplified Downing Street lockdown gatherings, with wall-to-wall coverage framing it as elite hypocrisy while the public suffered. It contributed to Boris Johnson's downfall.

en.wikipedia.org

3. Al-Ahli Hospital Blast (October 2023, Israel-Hamas War)Multiple outlets, including BBC initially, reported or heavily implied an Israeli airstrike killed 500+ at Gaza's Al-Ahli hospital based on local authorities/Hamas claims. It was later established as a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket, with far lower casualties. BBC faced heavy criticism for rushed reporting, delayed corrections, and pattern of issues in Gaza coverage (e.g., language, sourcing). CAMERA and others documented frequent BBC corrections.

honestreporting.com

4. Misleading/Selective Reporting on 2024 UK Riots & Southport Stabbing Aftermath

Following the Southport child murders, some coverage emphasised "far-right" riots and misinformation on social media while initial reluctance to clearly report the suspect's background (UK-born, Rwandan heritage) or broader context (grooming/immigration tensions) drew accusations of two-tier reporting. MSM focused heavily on condemning "misinfo" online while downplaying legitimate public concerns over integration, crime stats, or policing inconsistencies. This amplified perceptions of narrative control.

committees.parliament.uk

5. BBC Panorama Trump Speech Editing (2024–2025)

A BBC Panorama episode spliced Trump's January 6 speech to make it appear he directly incited violence ("fight like hell"), omitting peaceful parts. Leaked internal review highlighted this as misleading; it contributed to 2025 resignations of Director-General Tim Davie and news chief. Seen as a clear editorial failure in a high-profile pre-election piece.

reuters.com

Other Notable Patterns

• Grooming gangs: Long-term reluctance/downplaying of ethnic patterns in Rotherham/Oldham/etc. reports, despite official inquiries confirming them. Initial MSM hesitation contrasted with later admissions.

• Transgender issues: Coverage often followed activist framing (e.g., "no debate," Cass Review aftermath), with later corrections or shifts as evidence on youth transitions emerged.

• Routine headline inflation (e.g., Daily Mail/Express clickbait) and selective omissions in immigration/ECHR stories.

  reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

Context: All outlets err; corrections happen. UK MSM (especially BBC due to its reach) has faced declining trust from repeated perception of bias, groupthink, or agenda-driven framing—exacerbated by COVID, culture wars, and riots. Social media exposes raw footage faster, forcing reckonings.