The UK government has announced plans to introduce a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16. This follows a consultation on the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, wellbeing and safety. It represents one of the most significant interventions in children’s online lives since the Online Safety Act.

The announcement has generated strong reactions. Many parents welcome the idea, arguing that social media companies have failed to create safe environments for children. Others question whether a ban will work in practice, or whether it risks oversimplifying a much more complex issue.

Perhaps most significantly, Ian Russell – one of the most influential and respected campaigners in the UK online safety debate – has questioned whether a blanket social media ban for under-16s is the right solution. Russell, whose daughter Molly died after being exposed to harmful online content, is strongly critical of social media companies. But he argues that the focus should be on making platforms safer by design and enforcing stronger regulation, rather than relying on a ban that many young people may simply find ways to circumvent.

Here are some key questions answered for parents trying to make sense of the headlines.

What is actually being announced?

The government’s intention is to prevent children under 16 from accessing mainstream social media platforms. This would be likely to include services such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and X, although the final list has yet to be confirmed. However, it seems messaging platforms such as WhatsApp are not included the scope of the ban.

The proposal would require platforms to verify users’ ages and prevent underage access. This means the success of any ban will depend heavily on age-assurance technology. Such systems range from simple self-declaration to more sophisticated approaches such as facial age estimation or identity verification.

There are also proposals to restrict engagement with strangers on gaming platforms, such as limiting unsolicited contact. Livestreaming and endless scrolling on platforms will be banned for young people.

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, has said that the ban could come into effect in spring 2027.

However, importantly, this is not simply a question of passing a law. The practical challenge is enforcement. Millions of children already have social media accounts, and many young people are highly skilled at navigating online restrictions. Experience from other countries suggests that some children will inevitably find ways around any barriers that are introduced.

À lire aussi :
Australia has already banned social media for under 16s – here’s what the UK can learn from the experience

The government has acknowledged this reality. The argument being made is not that a ban will be perfect, but that reducing access and raising the barriers to entry will reduce overall exposure to potential harms.

Why is the government doing this?

The proposal reflects growing political concern about children’s online experiences. In recent years there has been increasing attention on issues such as cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, online exploitation, algorithmic recommendation systems, endless scrolling and excessive screen time.

Many parents will recognise these concerns. Stories about harmful content reaching children and social media-related anxiety regularly attract media attention. Campaign groups raised concerns about the “addictive” design of social media.

À lire aussi :
Ban on phones in schools: support for headteachers or unnecessary legislation?

At the same time, concerns about children’s mental health have become increasingly linked to debates about smartphones and social media. While researchers continue to argue that the evidence for this is not clear, the perception that social media is contributing to a wider wellbeing crisis has become influential in public and political discussions.

The government’s proposal reflects a broader international trend. Australia has already introduced legislation to restrict social media access for younger users, while policymakers in several other countries are considering similar measures.

Will it work?

This is where the debate becomes more complicated.

Supporters argue that society already accepts age restrictions in many areas. Children cannot legally buy alcohol, cigarettes or gambling products. From this perspective, introducing age limits for social media is a reasonable response to evidence of harm.

Critics, however, point out that social media differs from many other age-restricted activities. Young people use these platforms not only for entertainment but also for communication, social connection, creativity and access to information. For many teenagers, social media is woven into everyday social life.

À lire aussi :
The online world comes with risks – but also friendships and independence for young people with disabilities

There are also questions about whether bans address the root causes of concern. Some researchers argue that platform design may be more important than access itself. Engagement-driven business models can affect users of all ages. Restricting younger users’ access may reduce their exposure to these features, but it does not necessarily address the systems that created concern in the first place.

There is also the possibility of unintended consequences. Some young people may simply migrate to less regulated platforms, use VPNs, create false accounts or access services through older friends and family members. Others may become less willing to discuss their online experiences if they fear losing access altogether.

What does this mean for parents?

Perhaps the most important point is that legislation cannot replace parenting, education and support.

Even if a ban is introduced, young people will continue to encounter digital technology, online communities and social platforms throughout their lives. The skills they need to navigate these spaces safely will remain important regardless of what the law says.

The government’s proposal represents a significant shift in online safety policy and reflects genuine public concern about children’s digital lives. Whether it becomes a transformative intervention or another chapter in a long-running debate about technology and childhood remains to be seen.

What is certain is that the challenge facing parents, educators and policymakers extends beyond social media itself. The real question is not simply how to keep children away from online risks, but how to help them develop the skills, confidence and resilience they need to navigate an increasingly digital world.

What are the ways you can increase running stamina?

Mave, South East

There are many ways that you can increase running stamina. The one thing that I know is in terms of training, which means more mileage, more distance. So for example, if you want to have more endurance, then you have to do more intervals, like 800m and then increase your mileage weekly.

Do you think ordinary runners will benefit from investing in carbon-plated shoes?

Simon, London

Yes, they will benefit because it means you’re saving your feet [with the carbon-fibre shoes]. It means that you can do more runs. You can do more, faster runs. And you’re not beating up [your feet] as much.

Do you think middle-aged people without any running experience can take up running safely?

Eleni, London

I’ve heard amazing stories where people in midlife pick up running and suddenly they’re enjoying it. But one thing I’ve always said is to have a goal, whatever that goal is.

If you want to compete at 5k, do that. If you want to compete [at] 10k, aim for that. If you want to run a personal best, you always have to have a goal. If you don’t have a goal, it’s hard to motivate yourself.

Outside of running, what is the one hobby that has helped keep you balanced over the years?

Brandon, London

For me, it is just going to the gym. I’ve always gone to the gym and done lifting, as well as core and stuff. And that keeps my body in good nick.

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever been given?

Zoe, London

The best piece of advice I got given is to join the running club.

Continuing with Mr Green’s statement, Mr Pitter KC said he checked on landing two where Fellows was residing. He said he spoke to him and Fellows ‘thanked him for being quiet’.

“I found it peculiar that he spoke to me as he normally speaks to me in the day,” he said.

He said as Fellows was a category A prisoner, he was checked hourly. He said he checked on Fellows at midnight and he was lying in his bed, either ‘looking at his TV or looking at the ceiling’.

Mr Green said he checked on Bevan and said he saw him lay on his front. He said Bevan was category B and checks were on roll call. He said Taylor and Newell were checked three or five times a night.

He said Newell was on the CSC (close supervision) unit because he was ‘unsafe to himself and others’. “I know he does not like sex offenders or offenders against children, neither does Fellows,” he said.

“I would say they [Newell and Fellows] are sociable, and friendly together.” Mr Green saoid Fellows was in charge of menus and keeping the area clean.

He added: “I always found him to be polite but he occasionally shouts and rants at others. He is a germaphobe, I recall one occasion when officers went to conduct checks in his cell and did not wear sterile gloves.

“He was unhappy they touched his belongings without wearing sterile gloves. Fellows has a dislike of offenders who committed crimes against children and he does not mix with sex offenders.”

He said Fellows, Taylor and Newell have been seen to spend time together. Mr Green said a new system had been introduced which left prisoners feeling like in a ‘category B jail’.

He said around two weeks before Bevan’s death, he received an application by Fellows to move prisons. “The reason he gave was because Ms Metcalfe was a joke, Ms Metcalfe is the new governor,”| he said.

He said he forwarded this onwards, and was unsure if he received a response.

Gareth Malone, known for his hit BBC series The Choir, will bring his latest live tour Sing-A-Long-A-Gareth: At The Movies to York Grand Opera House on the corner of Clifford Street and Cumberland Street on Saturday, November 7.

The new show invites audiences to sing along to some of the most iconic songs from cinema, offering the full enthusiasm and warmth for which Mr Malone is known.

Recommended reading:

He said: “I’m thrilled to be whisking you away to the movies for a night celebrating the power of song.

“We’ll raise the roof together one more time in a night of Oscars-inspired fun and laughter.

“Don’t miss out on this chance to sing your heart out.”

Sing-A-Long-A-Gareth: At The Movies, led by Gareth Malone, comes to York Grand Opera House on November 7 (Image: Olivia Hemingway)

Backed by his live band, singers, and local choirs, Mr Malone will guide the audience through a playlist of cinematic favourites.

The evening will include classics such as Singin’ in the Rain and Moon River from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, as well as modern hits like City of Stars from La La Land and family favourites from Frozen and Moana.

Gareth said: “We’ll raise the roof together one more time in a night of Oscars inspired fun and laughter.” (Image: Olivia Hemingway)

No singing experience is necessary—just a love of music and movies.

Mr Malone has become a household name through his television work and live tours.

He has achieved three number one records in the UK, including with the Military Wives Choir, and was awarded an OBE in 2012 for services to music.

For more information and tickets – go to https://myticket.co.uk/artists/gareth-malone

“This will take it to the next stage though for broader society, having a social media restriction in place for our young people is the right thing to do because of the harm that it causes in so many areas around anxiety, mental health, depression, low self-esteem, eating disorders, many caused by young people getting access to this technology much too early, even before they are 10-years-old,” he said.

A two-year-old boy has been seriously injured after a car crashed into a nursery school playground, police said.

A 63-year-old woman has been arrested on suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving after a car drove through a fence and into the playground of the school on Vale Road in the Whitby area of Ellesmere Port at around 9.54am on Monday, Cheshire Constabulary said.

Police and the North West Ambulance Service attended and the boy was taken to hospital with “what are thought to be serious injuries”.

His next of kin have been made aware, the force said.

Two other children sustained minor injuries in the crash.

A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “Officers are currently on scene and are conducting a number of inquiries to fully establish the circumstances of what is believed to be an isolated incident.”

Jorvik Immersive Theatre will stage a series of performances at York’s Barley Hall between June 18 and August 27, 2026, inviting audiences to step inside the story of Ubbe Ragnarson, son of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok.

Viking York comes alive in immersive theatre at Barley Hall (Image: Submitted)

Set in the aftermath of the The Great Viking Army claiming victory over the Anglian settlement of Eoforwic in AD866, the production examines themes of power, legacy and belief, including a dramatic encounter with Odin.

Recommended reads:

Global superstar heads jam-packed week of major shows in North Yorkshire

Bakers, delis and distillers among talent nominated for awards – how to enter

Remembering the huge gigs that have rocked York Racecourse

Explore York through its food with this new five-stop tasting tour

Performed in the atmospheric surroundings of Barley Hall’s Great Hall, the show blends storytelling, combat and live music, with audience interaction shaping each performance.

Richard Jones, events manager at York Archaeology, said the venue enhances the experience.

“Barley Hall’s Great Hall is a wonderfully atmospheric space, with its high table, central fireplace and wonderfully high roof, making this a unique venue for the show but one which adds to the atmosphere.

“Each show has a limited number of tickets – the audience will feel as though they are part of the performance, and at times they are. This is the sister-attraction to JORVIK Viking Centre, and a wonderful place to see this Viking-themed play performed.”

The play is written by Hull-based Charlie Blanshard, and performed by Charlie and Oliver Strong. It received strong reviews during its national tour and previously sold out during the JORVIK Viking Festival.

A review in The Stage awarded the show four stars, praising its “rich, impressionistic language” and “love of Norse lore”.

Charlie said he was pleased to bring the show back to York. “Our audiences in York have always been incredibly welcoming, and with so many visitors to the city over the summer, having the chance to perform this eight times is amazing.”

Performances will take place on June 18, July 2, August 6 and August 27, with shows at 6pm and 7.30pm. Tickets cost £20 and can be booked via the Barley Hall website.

While seaside living is a goal for the majority of Brits, a new report has revealed some locations are more sought-after than others.

Research by estate agent Yopa found that while many coastal hotspots continue to command hefty premiums, others have seen house prices tumble as the post-pandemic property boom cools.

And nowhere has the drop been steeper drop than in Seahouses, Northumberland, where the average property price has plunged 38% year-on-year – the largest decline of the towns analysed.

Although other beachfront locations have also followed this downward trend — with Portmeirion, Wales, next on the list with a 20.2% decline, followed by Cornwall’s Fowey at 18.3% — demand from buyers is resilient overall.

In fact, homes in Sandbanks, Dorset, command an average of 75.6% more than the wider local authority average, while those in Padstow in Cornwalland Salcombe in Devon come in at around 70% higher.

So what’s causing this fall in Seahouses, and is it still considered a desirable place to live?

Property prices in Seahouses

According to Yopa, the average property price in Seahouses now sits at £259,346, down from £418,476 in March 2025.

Verona Frankish, the firm’s chief executive, says this is likely a ‘price correction’, as ‘many of Britain’s coastal hotspots enjoyed exceptional levels of house price growth during the pandemic’, but ‘the market has normalised’ in the years since.

Nathan Khider, founder of Nathan K Real Estate tells Metro that Londoners leaving the city for a seaside retirement created an ‘artificial market’, which has collapsed as people look towards spending their later years in areas with better ‘access to transport, hospitals and doctors.’

Saif Derzi, founder at Property Buyers Today, also notes that while seaside locations still attract some interest, ‘weaker or overpriced stock is having to be reduced to meet today’s more cautious buyer demand.’

In terms of this region more specifically, he tells Metro: ‘Northumberland remains a very location-specific market, with stronger demand for good-quality homes in desirable rural, commuter and coastal spots, but more pressure on properties that are dated, overpriced or harder to mortgage.

‘I would not see this as a blanket market crash, but as a sign that buyers are being more selective.’

Things to do in Seahouses

Despite the recent dip in house prices, it’s easy to see why Seahouses remains one of Northumberland’s most popular seaside destinations.

The bustling fishing village is the gateway to the Farne Islands, where visitors can hop on a boat trip to spot grey seals, puffins and a wealth of other seabirds.

Back on land, the harbour is lined with fish and chip shops — including the top-rated Neptune Fish Restaurant or Lewis’s Fish & Chips — along with an array of pubs, cafés and independent shops.

Meanwhile, the long sandy beach offering spectacular views of Bamburgh Castle and plenty of space for dog walks, picnics, and sunbathing (when the British weather plays ball, of course).

Seahouses also makes an ideal base for exploring the wider Northumberland coastline, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty famed for its dramatic castles and windswept bays.

Advertisement

History lovers can explore nearby Bamburgh Castle or visit Lindisfarne, the tidal island known as the cradle of English Christianity, while outdoorsy types can tackle the Northumberland Coast Path or head to the watersports hub of Beadnell for kitesurfing, windsurfing, surfing, and wakeboarding.

What locals say about living in Seahouses

As with many parts of the UK, residents of Seahouses have a wide range of opinions about what it’s like to live there.

Having recently relocated to the area, Hayley Norris said in a local Facebook group: ‘I can hand on heart tell you you’d never regret moving here. It’s a stunning place, friendly locals, close to other towns, great pubs and restaurants too.’

Elsewhere, Rachelle Watson commented that they ‘absolutely love it’ in Seahouses, in particular due to the ‘warm, friendly people’, a sentiment echoed by Marina Hayfield who added: ‘Best move we ever made… Really good community spirit here that you don’t get in big towns anymore.’

There are some criticisms though. On an r/AskUK thread about the best Northern seaside towns to relocate to, GrumpyOldFart74 called Seahouses and neighbouring Bamburgh ‘coastal and nice’, but warned they’re ‘very small and even further from anywhere.’

Some on Facebook also lamented the lack of public transport options and distance from amenities like a hospital, while Reddit user, SparklePenguin24, recommended Amble instead, writing: ‘Seahouses is a ghost town in the winter, and when the tourists arrive it’s terrible.’

Advertisement

This viewpoint is backed up slightly by Liveable, which scored it a C for transport and schools. However, with B+ ratings for amenities and outdoor space, as well as a low crime rate, it was deemed a ‘nice place to live’ — particularly for retirees or young professionals.

MORE: ‘Dumpers’ are the rude train commuters hated by both staff and other passengers

MORE: New ‘alternative to Bank of Mum and Dad’ could give you £12,500 for a house deposit

MORE: The ‘scenic’ town that’s been named the poshest in northern England

Advertisement

Comments


Add as preferred source

The Key

Sign up for must-read property stories, DIY hacks and tips for buying a home.

Advertisement

It happened last night (Sunday, June 14) near Filey Brigg Country Park.

Recommended reading:

HM Coastguard rescue teams were called to the scene, along with the ambulance service.

A spokesperson for Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust said: “We received an emergency call at 9pm to report a person who had fallen from cliffs in Filey, close to Filey Brigg Country Park.

“An emergency ambulance and a team leader were dispatched to the scene, and one patient was conveyed to hospital.”

An HM Coastguard spokesperson said: “At 8.55pm HM Coastguard was called to an incident at Filey, North Yorkshire.

“Coastguard Rescue Teams from Filey and Bridlington were sent, along with an HM Coastguard Search and Rescue Helicopter.”

“The incident concluded at 1am this morning.”

The announcement of a new agreement between the United States and Iran has been greeted with relief across global markets. Oil prices have eased, shipping insurers have relaxed and politicians have rushed to hail a diplomatic breakthrough.

The memorandum of understanding, which both sides have agreed to and are expected to formally sign in Switzerland on June 19, has even been described by some as a peace deal that will formally end the conflict. Yet that risks overstating what has actually been achieved.

What has reportedly been agreed is a diplomatic framework intended to guide future negotiations, not a peace treaty or a comprehensive settlement of the disputes that brought the two countries to the brink of a wider regional war. The most contentious issues – including Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and broader regional security arrangements including Israel’s war and occupation in Lebanon – remain unresolved and subject to further talks.

The distinction is more than semantic. International diplomacy operates on a spectrum. A ceasefire halts fighting; a peace agreement resolves the disputes that caused it. The US-Iran arrangement falls somewhere in between. The core issues remain unresolved and have been deferred to future negotiations, while the wider pattern of “grey-zone” confrontation — proxy activity, economic pressure and limited military escalation below the threshold of full-scale war — remains largely intact.

There is another reason to be cautious about calling this peace. The war interrupted diplomatic talks that were already underway. This agreement will largely restore a negotiating process that existed before the conflict rather than creating a new political settlement. If the central disputes remain unresolved, in what sense has peace actually been achieved?

One indication of the agreement’s limitations comes from Washington itself. The US president, Donald Trump – even in the latest “peace deal” announcement – has continuously suggested that future military action against Iran cannot be ruled out. That is not the language normally associated with a definitive peace settlement.

Nor does the agreement fully address the broader regional dimensions of the conflict. Israel, one of the principal actors in the confrontation with Iran, is not a party to the framework. Nor does the arrangement resolve continuing tensions on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, which remains a major source of instability. With Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, maintaining a hardline position towards Lebanon and reserving the right to act independently, the agreement looks less like a regional peace settlement than a narrowly focused US-Iran de-escalation mechanism.

Perhaps the clearest evidence that the deal is being exaggerated, however, lies in what it actually delivers. Strip away the diplomatic fanfare and the financial benefits to Iran and the agreement largely restores conditions that existed before the conflict escalated, particularly when it comes to reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

This may help explain why financial markets responded so enthusiastically. Markets are often described as reacting to peace. In reality, they tend to react to stability.

Oil traders, shipping companies and insurers are not primarily concerned with whether longstanding political disagreements have been resolved. They care about whether oil can move through chokepoints, whether tankers can be insured and whether supply chains can continue functioning.

The economics of de-escalation

That risk was considerable. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil. Any prolonged disruption would have had profound consequences for the world economy. Although oil prices never reached the US$200 (£149) per barrel levels that some commentators feared, this should not be interpreted as evidence that markets were comfortable with the situation.

Part of the reason prices remained contained was that governments and businesses were drawing upon buffers built for precisely such emergencies. Strategic petroleum reserves were released, existing stockpiles were called upon and some countries reduced imports and relied more heavily on stored supplies. These measures bought time. But they could never have continued indefinitely, especially as global strategic oil reseves were running out fast.

Had instability in the Gulf continued for several more months, governments would likely have faced increasingly difficult trade-offs between inflation, economic growth and energy security. Seen from this perspective, the diplomatic urgency becomes easier to understand.

For the US, sustained disruption in global energy markets risked feeding inflationary pressures that remain politically sensitive. For Europe and Asia, higher shipping and energy costs threatened already fragile economic recoveries. For many developing countries, another energy shock would have imposed severe economic hardship.

The agreement therefore reflects not only diplomatic calculation but economic necessity. In this sense, the biggest beneficiaries may not be Washington or Tehran at all. They may be consumers, businesses and central banks around the world that have avoided another potentially destabilising energy shock.

Peace or pause?

None of this is to dismiss the significance of the agreement. Preventing further escalation is a genuine achievement. Reopening critical maritime routes is beneficial for the global economy. Replacing military confrontation with diplomacy is undoubtedly preferable to the alternative.

If the deal holds, Iran could enter the next round of negotiations with the upper hand: sanctions relief under discussion, diplomacy back on track – and Washington increasingly reluctant to contemplate renewed military action as November’s midterm elections draw nearer.

But diplomacy is still best served by precision rather than exaggeration. Historically, peace agreements have settled disputes, created institutions and established durable frameworks for coexistence. This arrangement does none of those things – at least not yet.

The war’s underlying disagreements remain unresolved. Iran’s nuclear future remains uncertain. Sanctions remain contested. Regional rivalries persist. The possibility of renewed confrontation has not disappeared.

What has been achieved is not peace in any comprehensive sense. It is a ceasefire framework, an economic stabilisation mechanism and a diplomatic holding pattern.
That may prove to be an important first step. But it is not, at least for now, a peace deal.

If anything, the real story is not that Washington and Tehran have resolved their differences. It is that both sides had compelling reasons to step back from the brink.