Politics
Politics Home | Gen Z Labour MP Says Social Media Ban Will “Create More Problems” For Young People
The government has announced it will ban under-16s from accessing certain social media platforms (Alamy)
5 min read
Labour MP Josh Dean, one of the UK’s youngest MPs, has said the government’s ban on social media for under-16s is going to “create more problems” for young people rather than making them safer.
The MP for Hertford and Stortford told PoliticsHome that young people would inevitably find a way to circumvent the new laws, which Starmer said would be in place by spring 2027, and warned that harmful new websites would be created as alternatives to platforms impacted by the ban.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed on Monday morning that the government will ban certain major social media platforms for under-16s, after months of building pressure from campaigners and some Labour MPs. The opposition Conservative Party had also been pushing for a ban.
“I will not be prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children,” the PM said in a Downing Street press conference.
At 26 years old, Dean is the second-youngest MP serving in Parliament, having been elected in the 2024 general election aged 24. He told PoliticsHome he was “disappointed” in the government’s announcement, as he believes that a social media ban for under-16s is “missing the point” on how to protect young people.
“We’re missing an opportunity to regulate these platforms and hold the tech companies to account,” he said.
“My fear is, as it’s always been, that we’re putting the onus, the responsibility for the harms of the online world onto young people.”
He said that the vast majority of parliamentarians can remember a time before social media, while today’s generation of young people cannot.
“They’ve grown up with their lives intertwined with it, and I’m one of the few MPs that has as well,” he said.
“So much of this has become about people in Parliament deciding what childhood should be and not engaging young people on how we find the right balance for them.”
PoliticsHome understands that several online safety advocacy groups are frustrated that they spent significant time feeding into the consultation, only to then feel that the government has rushed out an announcement for political reasons. The consultation ran from early March to late May.
There are questions over how much longer Starmer has in No 10, with Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham expected to launch a bid to replace him if he wins the Makerfield by-election on Thursday.
Dean described the consultation as “positive” but said that the views of young people hadn’t been given enough attention.
“We need to be listening to the young people who are telling us that they don’t think this is going to work and that there are other measures that we can be taking to get this right.”
Dean said he was concerned that digitally literate young people would find their way around platform-specific bans, and poorly regulated alternatives would start to pop up to fill the space left by the larger platforms.
“It’s going to leave the regulator desperately struggling to catch up and close them down,” he said.
“I’m worried that this approach is actually going to create more problems for those of us who want to keep young people safe rather than actually solve the problems that we’re concerned about.”
As one of the few current MPs who grew up with social media, Dean said he wants to work “constructively” with the government to “really engage with this issue, to reset young people’s relationships with the online world and hold the big tech companies to account in a way that I haven’t seen in my lifetime before”.
“We need to go after the features and functionalities, which I think is where the real action is, and we need to bring young people with us, so I want to work with the government to make sure we take advantage of that opportunity.”
The proposals for the ban will include restrictions on specific platforms for under-16s, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, as well as restrictions on gaming services, live streaming platforms, and stranger communication. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal will not be banned for children.
Further announcements are expected about night-time social media curfews for 16-and 17-year-olds in the coming weeks.
Starmer said the ban, similar to the one implemented in Australia last year, was “not something I do lightly” and isn’t “cost-free”. He said the government would “move at speed” to introduce the necessary legislation with the aim of the ban coming into effect in the early part of next year.
While Starmer was believed to have been initially sceptical about hardline measures like Australia’s ban, he told reporters on Monday that he had reached this decision “having looked at the evidence, having gone through the consultation, having looked at what happened in other countries, having listened to parents, listened hard”.
The government has said that nine in ten parents who responded to its consultation backed a minimum age of 16 for accessing social media platforms. Around 83 per cent said they believed the risks presented by social media outweighed the benefits.
At the same time, opinion polling has consistently found strong public support for an under-16 social media ban.
Starmer said he did not accept the argument that an under-16 social media ban is not worthwhile because some children will get around it, saying it would be like opposing drinking laws because underage people sometimes drink alcohol.
Shrek, the little ogre that could, is set for his fifth movie in the DreamWorks franchise.
Shrek 5 has been confirmed since 2024, and provides a welcome end to the movies’ 16-year hiatus.
Mike Myers will play the titular role, while Cameron Diaz and Eddie Murphy will reprise their roles as Fiona and Donkey, respectively. Originally set to come out in 2026, the flick is now due for release on 30 June, 2027.
Still, at least fans can console ourselves with the just-released trailer, despite its notable omission. Universal had previously released a 2025 teaser, though this was an animated cast announcement rather than a glimpse at the contents of the film.
“It’s happening – it’s really happening!” star Cameron Diaz said in an Instagram post above the new preview.
Universal Pictures’ 81-second-long teaser shows yet another adventure for the donkey and Shrek, as well as what seems to be a worn-out pastiche of Frozen’s Olaf, who growls, pipe in hand: “Wanna date a snowman?”
(In the Disney film, Elsa’s sister Anna famously sings, “Do you wanna build a snowman?” before the princesses meet their animated snowman companion).
The family, including Donkey, Fiona, Shrek, and their children Fergus and Fakle end up imprisoned in the clip, too.
But Shrek and Fiona’s other child, Felicia, who is voiced by Zendaya, doesn’t appear once in the trailer, despite her name appearing under Cameron’s, Myers’, and Murphys’ in the title card at the end of the video.
The first Shrek 5 cast announcement, released in 2025, did feature Zendaya’s voice and character.
Zendaya, whose partner, Tom Holland, seems to have recently confirmed his marriage to the Euphoria star, has a history with Shrek.
After her role in the movie was announced, fans brought up a 2017 X post of hers which read, “I watch Shrek too often in my adulthood”.
“This aged well,” fans said at the time.
Photos of the back of the eyes could offer a way to predict some of the common risk factors linked to Alzheimer’s disease, which is the leading cause of dementia.
That’s according to a new study, which used AI to analyse retinal photographs from more than 40,000 UK patients.
Alzheimer’s disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells. It impacts more than 520,000 people in the UK.
Some of the risk factors for developing the condition include: old age, genetics, history of head injury, smoking, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, hearing loss, untreated depression, loneliness, drinking too much alcohol and not exercising enough.
In the latest study, researchers were able to identify regions of the retina associated with Alzheimer’s risk factors.
Lead author Ruogu Fang, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida, said most of the existing diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s disease focus on later in life, “when it is too late to intervene”.
But by looking at retinal health earlier on, “we offer new opportunities to identify patients at risk, offer appropriate tests and encourage them to develop healthy lifestyles to mitigate their risk”, she said.
Retinal photos are a relatively easy and cheap way to assess health
Many patients routinely have pictures of their eyes taken – whether because they have diabetes or glaucoma, or for routine eye examinations.
That means analysing retinal photographs could be a simple and low-cost way to spot Alzheimer’s risks factors compared to more expensive technologies, like MRI scans.
Co-author Seowung Leem, a doctoral student at University of Florida, said with the assistance of AI, they were able to identify subtle retinal variations that were previously overlooked across thousands of subjects – and these variations “may function as reliable indicators of future disease risk”.
Their AI model accurately predicted biological characteristics like sex or blood pressure as well as lifestyle factors associated with developing Alzheimer’s, such as smoking, alcohol use and even insomnia.
While these factors might be captured in patients’ medical charts, researchers noted those records are often incomplete. For example, people might not reliably report alcohol consumption or smoking.
Retinal photographs may provide another, more objective way to detect these risk factors, they said. Plus, they can capture damage accumulated over the years. The findings were published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Prof Fang’s group has already shown how retinal photographs can detect active cases of Alzheimer’s disease.
They suggested identifying early risk factors via retinal photos could better identify patients who might respond to earlier interventions – including protective lifestyle changes, some medications or brain training – before irreversible damage takes place.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
If there’s one thing you don’t want to mess around with, it’s your kid’s sleep.
From newborn through to primary school age, what gets them to sleep and keeps them comfy through the night is a delicate balance.
Whether they’re still being swaddled, or have graduated to pyjamas with actual sleeves and legs, naturally, you only want what’s best for your little one.
If your whole house is tired of sleepless nights, we’ve found the sleepwear solution to keeping your kids safe and itchy skin-free.
Australian brand ergoPouch uses all organic cotton and natural fibres to create sleepwear for kids up to six years old that’s as comfortable for your them as it is reassuring for you.
From practical swaddles, to preschool pyjamas, each item is made with their skin comfort in mind, and comes in a range of cute colours and patterns. Its sleepwear is even TOG-rated, so you know they’re the right temperature throughout the night.
Right now, they have 25% off some of their bestselling items. If you’re looking to stock up on breathable, organic kids pyjamas or bedding, we’ve rounded up our top picks from the ergoPouch sale to shop now.
Ahead of the ten year anniversary of the EU referendum on 23 June, UK in a Changing Europe experts have written a short series of blogs reflecting on some of the issues at the heart of Brexit then and now. Here, Joël Reland reflects on Brexit and regulation.
The Leave campaign’s central slogan – ‘Take Back Control’ – evoked the idea of EU rules preventing the UK from looking after its own best interests. Boris Johnson bemoaned Brussels “telling us how powerful our vacuum cleaners have got to be, what shape our bananas have got to be” while a Leave campaign briefing claimed that EU regulations serve ‘a small number of large multinationals’ and ‘crush entrepreneurial competition’.
Against that backdrop, Theresa May quickly decided that regulatory freedom would be central to her Brexit agenda, using her first Party Conference speech to promise that “our laws will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster”.
But it soon became apparent that this would both add major costs to EU trade – due to leaving the single market – and create a regulatory border with Northern Ireland (which had to remain aligned to EU law to keep the Irish border open).
This realisation was, according to Philip Hammond, “like a light bulb going on” – leading May to develop the ‘Chequers deal’, under which the entire UK would continue to adhere to all EU regulations necessary to maintain frictionless trade in goods. Boris Johnson and David Davis resigned at this “semi-Brexit” and May ultimately failed to get her plan through Parliament.
Johnson subsequently won an election promising to use ‘post-Brexit freedoms to transform the UK for the better’ and accordingly negotiated a Brexit deal which gave Great Britain near-total control over its law-making, at the cost of new trade frictions with the EU and – despite his denials – Northern Ireland.
Yet Johnson’s administration consequently struggled to develop a plan for unpicking EU red tape. A 105-page paper called ‘The benefits of Brexit’ outlined a long list of options for regulatory reform, but gave no sense of prioritisation or how policy would be delivered.
The strategy – if there was one – focused on the quantity, not quality, of reform. In 2022, the newly-installed Minister for Brexit Opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg, announced plans for a ‘Brexit freedoms bill’ – officially titled the Retained EU Law (REUL) Bill – under which all REUL (i.e. EU-derived law) would expire by default, except where ministers chose to retain specific pieces. It was accompanied by a Retained EU Law Dashboard, to provide live data on the proportion of REUL which had been abolished.
The highly performative approach was heavily criticised, especially by business, for creating a deeply uncertain regulatory horizon which prevented long-term planning and risked citizens losing vital legal protections – especially as officials did not even seem to know how much REUL was out there in the ether.
The plan was eventually abandoned under the Sunak government, with then-Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch stating “we are not arsonists… I do not think a bonfire of regulations is what we wanted”. Since then, the rate of plans for divergence has slowed significantly.
A glance at the REUL dashboard today might make you think that a bonfire of EU red tape has, nevertheless, been lit. It shows that 37% of REUL has been reformed – with 23% repealed and 13% amended or replaced (the other 1% has expired).
But this, in fact, amounts to little more than a glorified regulatory spring clean: the vast majority of ‘reformed’ REUL has either been subject to technical amendment (e.g. restated in a new legislation) or is no longer of relevance (e.g. legislation relating to the 2001 foot-and-mouth crisis or EU regimes which the UK is no longer part of).
Moreover, our series of Divergence Tracker reports, shows that successive UK governments have delivered little in the way of substantive divergence from EU law.
There have been a smattering of changes to financial services regulations, such as lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses, while rules on the use of genetic editing techniques have been liberalised. Several ‘freeports’ have been established; the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter has been banned; and certain alcohols are now taxed by strength, not quantity. There have also been some symbolic changes, such as permitting the sale of Champagne in pint-sized bottles and new guidance on selling groceries in imperial measures.
Given regulatory control was so central to Brexit, what explains this lack of action? One reason was that the government never set a clear strategy for divergence, while the civil service – overwhelmed with a wide range of new post-Brexit regulatory functions – had little capacity to focus on strategic ideas for reform.
But the most fundamental reason is that divergence, more often than not, adds costs to trade. The government argued that regulation could be better ‘tailored’ to UK interests (rather than being a cross-EU ‘compromise’). But, from a trade perspective, regulation is all about compromise: creating common standards between parties which reduce trade frictions.
‘Tailoring’ regulation to a single country therefore increases frictions, and several marquee plans for divergence – including on data protection, medical devices and conformity assessments – were abandoned for this reason.
British companies have made it more than apparent that they prefer to avoid divergence where possible. Across multiple sectors – from vehicles to products to food – they have voluntarily opted to adhere to new EU rules, even though they do not apply in Great Britain, because it is necessary to maintain access to the EU market. This is the reason why Rachel Reeves now argues that divergence “should be the exception, not the norm”.
One final curiosity is that the UK has repeatedly used its regulatory freedom to move in a similar direction to the EU. It has set higher emissions reduction targets and has an earlier phase-out date for combustion engine vehicles. Its new rulebooks on online safety and digital markets bear an uncanny resemblance to the EU Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts. And employee protections have increased, despite earlier promises to scrap the Working Time Directive.
Even the few notable cases of divergence often serve to strengthen the hand of the state – increasing animal welfare protections and alcohol taxes – while a fully-fledged UK-US trade deal remains elusive, not least because of public opposition to any watering down of food standards.
Brexit has revealed the UK’s regulatory instincts to be much more European than many assumed.
By Joël Reland, Senior Researcher, UK in a Changing Europe.
1 Lauren Sullivan LAB 2 Frank McNally LAB 3 Sarah Owen LAB 4 Matt Vickers CON 5 Debbie Abrahams LAB 6 John Whitby LAB 7 Beccy Cooper LAB 8 Ayoub Khan IND 9 Louie French CON 10 Bradley Thomas CON 11 Yuan Yang LAB 12 Josh Babarinde LIB 13 Anna Gelderd LAB 14 Chris Vince…
Skating legend Tony Hawk recently shared details of an abandoned Space Jam sequel on Netflix’s The Pete Davidson Show.
The 58-year-old pro skater said he was approached for Skate Jam, a follow-up to the 1996 film starring Michael Jordan.
“The way that the whole story went down was I got a call saying, ’Hey, Warner Brothers is really interested in doing Skate Jam. And I was like, ‘That is the most amazing thing I’ve ever heard,’ right?
“My oldest son, when he was very young, watched Space Jam endlessly, and had to get Space Jam shoes, would quote it,” he added on the video podcast.
“And so, just being a father, I was, like, I know how much those movies resonate. To make it about skating would just be like the ultimate dream. They said they really want to get on this.
“They’re about to release Back In Action. That is the vehicle to reintroduce Looney Tunes, Warner Brothers back to the movies, and then we’re going to hit him right back with Skate Jam,” he claimed.
Tony said that the team were so keen, he met them in a restaurant in LA’s airport to discuss details of the project.
“I was leaving for Australia, and they said, ‘We really need to secure this – make sure you’re interested, make sure you like the outline of it,’ and so they met me at that LAX restaurant, and they presented me with storyboards, in the airport, in that restaurant.”
He recalled: “It was wild. My agent flew from New York to be there, to be in the airport. This thing was happening, right? They’re showing me all the stuff. I’m, like, ‘Yeah, it looks super cool’… I approved everything there.”
Tony claimed he was offered a million dollars for the deal. But, he said, things fell apart after his return from Australia.
“My sister was my business partner and my agent at the time. She’s like, ‘They’re not calling us back,’” he said.
“I thought we were like, this is all happening. And then, finally, the word came back that Back in Action didn’t do the numbers they’d hoped for. They didn’t want to pour anything else into Looney Tunes. So you can’t do Skate Jam.”
He also stated “that was the one that got away, though, like, in my life”.
On 15 June, we reported that Labour minister Mike Tapp was gloating about the decision to maintain Palestine Action’s ‘terrorist’ proscription. A day later, we reported he was trying to ensnare Zack Polanski into saying he supports Palestine Action – something which would have landed him with a lengthy prison sentence. In other words, he’s a nasty piece of work. And the nastiness has only continued:
Grow up. Homophobic innuendo isn’t going to get you out of this one.
Neither is pretending you’re a victim of antisemitism, which you conflate with opposing genocide.
You’re a government minister trying to get your political opponent arrested https://t.co/yAsyFBNjNB — Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) June 16, 2026
Palestine Action ‘debate’
The Tapp tweet above was in response to this:
I’m more disturbed that you spent the night thinking about me.
The antisemitism I’ve woken to from the extreme left over night is utterly unhinged, shameful and disturbing.
— Mike Tapp MP (@MikeTappTweets) June 16, 2026
The “unhinged law” in question has led to scenes like the following:
More than 100 Palestine Action supporters are arrested outside the Royal Courts of Justice after judges ruled the ban on the group was lawful https://t.co/1E9SiT2b6W
— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) June 15, 2026
In the UK, it’s now a terror offence to peacefully sit down holding a sign.
Do you feel terrified by the above images?
No?
Because Mike Tapp does, as he made clear with the tweet that kicked it all off:
Supporting Palestine Don’t support terrorists.
— Mike Tapp MP (@MikeTappTweets) June 15, 2026
Supporting Palestine Action 
And as many have pointed out:
labour mps love to say this and then not support palestine either https://t.co/u4EuFi6mxS
— adam (@resurrecti0ns) June 15, 2026
Tapp is a flagrant example of this, because – as Skwawkbox reported:
Labour Friends of Israel made Tapp an honorary vice chair. This group exists to forward Israel’s interests in the UK, which is a problem, because Israel’s interests include:
- Subjecting Palestinians to decades of apartheid.
- Committing genocide.
- Doing everything possible to break the ceasefire between the US and Iran, pushing the world ever closer to a fuel crisis that crashes the global economy.
When the non-Jewish Tapp says he’s faced ‘antisemitism’, what he means is people called out his political affiliations. This is how Zionist propaganda works. You can’t say a politician takes money from Israel’s backers – even if they do – because it sounds like ‘Jews control politics’. It’s a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’, in other words; a way of using the sins of the past to obscure the sins of the present.
I just scrolled through maybe a few hundred comments (not all tbf) under Mikes heavily ratioed Palestine Action post and didn’t see a single one that could be antisemitic. Unless the definition has now broadened to calling him a dickhead. pic.twitter.com/Z1MFVTUbE1
— Razor Marone (@Streettough) June 16, 2026
Yes or no?
In response to Tapp’s ‘yes or no, do you support Palestine Action?’ question, PhD researcher Thanos Angelopoulos asked the following:
nine questions. Each yes or no.
1) Did the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants on 21 November 2024 against Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare? Yes or no.
2) Is the United Kingdom a state party to the Rome Statute, legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he enters British territory? Yes or no.
3) Has the UK government continued to license arms exports to the State of Israel since those warrants were issued? Yes or no.
4) Has the UK government continued diplomatic and political cooperation with the government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu since those warrants were issued? Yes or no.
5) Does the United Kingdom’s existing criminal legislation, including the International Criminal Court Act 2001, contain offences applicable to those who provide assistance to persons under ICC arrest warrant for war crimes? Yes or no.
6) Could a UK government minister who has personally and publicly endorsed the continuation of arms exports and political cooperation with a government headed by an ICC indictee face individual legal exposure under those same provisions? Yes or no.
7) Is it the case, as documented by the Campaign Against Arms Trade and Transparency International UK, that the United Kingdom maintains an extensive and ongoing revolving door between government and the arms industry, including the movement of former ministers and senior Ministry of Defence officials into companies that profit from continued UK arms exports to the State of Israel? Yes or no.
8) Does Section 53 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 require the consent of the Attorney General, a political officer of the government, before any prosecution under that Act can be brought? Yes or no.
9) Does the availability of procedural or constitutional defences to government ministers acting in their official capacity alter the underlying factual conduct of those ministers? Yes or no.
If the answer to each of the above is yes, the following should be happening under the United Kingdom’s own legal and policy framework.
The Strategic Export Licensing Criteria requires the government not to issue or maintain licences where there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. The government has already made that assessment for around thirty licences.
The ICC arrest warrants, and the charges they contain, materially strengthen the case that this risk applies more broadly. Full suspension of the remaining relevant licences is the only position consistent with the UK’s own published rules.
Continued authorisation of exports in these circumstances also raises serious questions about potential ancillary liability under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. An investigation by the Attorney General into ministerial decision-making, with knowledge of the ICC warrants, would be the appropriate next step.
Parliament has a duty to hold individual ministers to account for these decisions.
None of this is happening.
Tell us, Tapp, why none of this is happening?
There are always receipts, aren't there, Tapp?https://t.co/GbUQLZiKgL pic.twitter.com/y39qH0ZqJO
— Thanos Angelopoulos (@Th_Angelopoulos) June 16, 2026
No politics here!
Tapp also accused his critics of ‘student politics’:
No, I preach politics like “stop murdering Palestinian kids”.
Oh: and “don’t attack pensioners and disabled people.”
You’re a glorified internet troll serving in one of the most despised governments in history. https://t.co/FChhEupN0W
— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) June 16, 2026
Under Keir Starmer’s sensible, grown-up politics, the party has gone from winning a substantial majority to this:
Via @FindoutnowUK, 11 June — Stats for Lefties
POLL | Reform lead by 7pts
Ref: 25% (-2)
Con: 18% (+1)
Grn: 17% (-)
Lab: 16% (+1)
Lib: 13% (+2)
—
(+/- vs 4 June) pic.twitter.com/80wDdFEmQ0
(@LeftieStats) June 11, 2026
We’ll stick with the student politics thanks, Mike.
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
On 16 June, we reported on a grim story from the Makerfield by-election concerning Reform. Local Reform councillors posted a picture which suggested they’d vote for Jimmy Saville if it allowed them to replace Keir Starmer. The problem is this means they would vote for Jimmy Saville – one of Britain’s most notorious sexual predators.
Since then, Reform have done what they can to distance themselves from the controversy. The problem is their attempts only made things worse. This is why a defensive post from Lee Anderson now looks like this:
Reform distraction tactics
As we reported on 16 June, Saville was a serious offender:
450 people accused him of sexual abuse. 82% of the victims were female; 80% of them were children. Saville used his position as a children’s entertainer to get away with this, as well as his connections within the media and charity sectors. He was a plague on this country, and no one should forget that.
It’s one thing for private individuals to make edgy jokes about paedophiles; it’s quite another for a political party which is arguing that the establishment doesn’t take issues like ‘grooming gangs‘ seriously.
The offending image from Reform UK was this:
Reform UK’s #Makerfield campaign team for @RobKenyonReform, including 2 Wigan councillors Gemma Painter and Lilian Rogers.
Photo ops with Jimmy Saville jokes.
Sick.@reformparty_uk and Kenyon, anything to say? Share this, make sure everyone in Makerfield sees it. pic.twitter.com/GHT3TFWCHj
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) June 15, 2026
While the defensive post from Reform chair Lee Anderson is now deleted, we can still get an idea of what he posted from the replies:
Lee Anderson now complicit in a lie.
Look at the one you’ve posted.
It’s not Rob Kenyon, and the logo is AI warped. Plus look at the union flag.
Why did your councillor Gemma Painter delete it and then her Facebook?
Because it was real. Here’s also images by Stephen… pic.twitter.com/MZr7MxKiyd
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) June 16, 2026
There’s also this post from Reform North Liverpool making the same claim as Anderson (screengrabbed in case they delete):
Here’s a closeup of that AI Rob Kenyon. As you can see, he’s running for a party which seems to be called ‘Rafcvim *INDECIPHERABLE*’:
Almost as robotic as the real thing.
Reform Party Exposed UK said this following the deletion:
Reform UK’s Chairman @LeeAndersonMP_ has deleted his post claiming the Councillor Gemma Painter photo of her with a man holding a sign saying “I’d rather vote for Jimmy Savile” was a fake.
He’s a head of the party and he’s clearly realised he’s posted a faked attempt to… pic.twitter.com/ZjpveEkpMd — Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) June 16, 2026
And they captured Anderson’s tweet for posterity:
Knowing how the right-wing mind works, we assume this means Anderson was up all night playing “X Box”.
Reputational damage
Reform politicians have tried to paint themselves as protectors of women while simultaneously not taking crimes against women seriously. We saw this when Farage insulted grooming gang survivors, and they demanded an apology from him. We saw it when Reform politicians pushed to end no-fault divorce, which would trap many women in abusive marriages. And we’ve seen it with the accusations of sexism in the party, which come from Reform politicians themselves.
Given all this, it’s unsurprising Reform councillors would think Saville is a big joke. Their whole party is a joke, so why not make it obvious to everyone?
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
Iran foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has responded to Israel’s attempts to reject Donald Trump’s supposed ceasefire ‘memorandum of understanding‘ with Iran. Araghchi warned Israel – and Trump – that there is no prospect of any agreement to end the illegal US-Israel war unless Israel gets out of Lebanon completely:
The end of the war will not be complete without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied in Lebanon. Any military attack by Israel on Lebanon and the continued occupation of Lebanese territories from now on, in our opinion, is a violation of the MoU.
Araghchi continues to warn Israel that any attacks on Beirut will be punished by heavy missile and drone bombardment of the northern occupation. Israel continues to slaughter civilians in southern Lebanon while the occupation military takes a pounding from ‘first-person view’ drones.
Iran are in control
The ‘MOU’, even if the Iranians agree to it, has sent the US Israel lobby into a meltdown with Israel-firsters accusing Trump of surrendering to Iran.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
After the UK’s prime minister announced under-16s are to be banned from using social media, reactions came in thick and fast.
But one that’s left many people bemused is that of a pupil from Preston’s Tarleton Academy, who revealed that her screen time over the weekend can reach up to nine hours.
When a BBC presenter asked what she’ll do with her spare time (in lieu of the ban), school pupil Isabella responded, completely straight-faced: “Stare at a wall.”
The clip was shared widely on social media, including on the Archbishop of Banterbury Instagram account with the caption: “What a diva.” At the time of writing, the clip had almost 2,000 comments and over 83,000 likes.
“She’ll have to read the back of shampoo bottles like we had to,” said one commenter.
“There is strong research that shows being bored makes better problem solvers and more creative thinkers,” added another.
I doubt any teen will be spending nine hours staring at a wall once they’re booted off social media (in fact, I imagine many of them will be figuring out how to get around the ban – as has happened in Australia).
While her response was clearly dripping in sarcasm, the comment about “staring at a wall” highlights something often missing from the whole social media ban debate: that teens have far fewer physical places to go than generations before them.
If we scrap social media, what replaces it?
My parents often tell me about their youth, when it was completely normal for them to play out in the streets and surrounding fields (which seemingly weren’t owned by anyone?!) and stay out for hours and hours.
When I was growing up, we’d do the same – albeit a bit closer to home. Roads were far quieter for bike rides. There also seemed to be more clubs and activities to get involved with, whether at school, the local youth club or even places of worship (ie. church groups).
But experts have been warning for some time of the disappearance of physical spaces for young people to go amidst a growing issue of ‘social thinning’.
Between 2010 and 2023, more than 1,200 council run youth centres closed across England and Wales, and local authority spending on youth services in England plummeted by just over 70%.
Research suggests that today’s children have significantly less freedom to roam, play outdoors, or gather with friends than previous generations.
You’ve got the cinema (although that doesn’t come cheap), the park, the football fields. There are still some places teens can hang out, but it’s not as easy as it once was. “No ball games” signs still dominate neighbourhoods. Groups of teens are also, let’s face it, likely to be moved on or branded a “nuisance” for loitering on street corners.
One in three young people say they do not feel part of their local community, and young people in Britain are more likely to report feelings of loneliness than any other age group, with 70% of 18- to 24-year-olds reporting they feel lonely at least some of the time.
Banning social media for under-16s is coming from a place of wanting to help and protect children, but there have to be places for kids to go instead. Places where it’s not going to cost parents hundreds or thousands of pounds a year to keep them occupied (because god knows with the cost of living being the way it is, many of us simply can’t afford it).
Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist and the founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, which offers specialist mental health support to teens, told me that adolescence is defined “by a drive for validation, belonging, connection and independence”.
“Social media didn’t create those needs, it simply became the place where many of them now play out,” she explained. “So legislation can restrict access to platforms, but it cannot remove the developmental needs that underpin young people’s behaviour.”
She noted this leaves us with some important questions. For starters, will removing access to social media genuinely reduce harm, or simply push it underground? But also, crucially, what are we putting in its place?
The latter question is one that I think the government needs to think long and hard about – and come up with some answers, fast.
20 Teen Movies Like ‘Mean Girls’ That Are So Fetch
Shrek 5 Trailer Has Just Launched Without Zendaya
2026 World Cup parlay, best bets: Top picks for matches on Wednesday include Portugal and England
-
Business3 days agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Crypto World6 days agoOppenheimer backs SpaceX as $70 billion retail frenzy builds
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Tuckernuck – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World6 days agoMarkets Rally as SpaceX IPO Looms Amid Iran Tensions and Inflation Surge
-
Crypto World2 days agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Tech4 days agoNanoClaw integrates JFrog registries to secure AI agent downloads
-
Tech5 days agoThis Week In Security: Microsoft On Microsoft, Register Your Domains, Linux On ARM, And FreeBSD Joins The File Cache Club
-
Crypto World4 days agoBitget enters Argentina’s regulated crypto market through PSAV registration
-
Tech6 days agoDutton Ranch star claims they ‘didn’t see any disruption’ on set following Chad Feehan’s exit from Yellowstone spinoff fueled by Taylor Sheridan clash rumors
-
NewsBeat6 days agoEl Nino has formed in the Pacific and could set records, forecasters say
-
Politics6 days agoPolitics Home | Healey Resignation Is “Colossal Failure Of Government”, Says Former Labour Defence Secretary
-
Entertainment6 days agoDonnie Wahlberg & More Heat Up Las Vegas at Circa’s Barry’s Downtown Prime
-
Tech6 days agoOpendoor Ends India Operations, Fueling a Bigger Conversation About AI and Outsourcing
-
Sports6 days agoFirst Time Since 1971: Australia Register Historic Low In ODI Cricket
-
Politics6 days agoBelfast burns, while Met chief points finger at Iran and Russia
-
Business6 days agoAT&T: Verizon's 27% Outperformance Sets Up A Solid Entry Point
-
NewsBeat5 days agoFBI searches office of Ohio voter registration group
-
Tech5 days agoAnthropic is spending $150M to embed 1,000 AI fellows inside nonprofits. No degree required.
-
Politics6 days agoModi thanks Trump for wishes as US attacks Indian seafarers
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘The Pitt’s Fan-Favorite Doctor Confirms Noah Wyle Gave His Blessing to Return [Exclusive]
You must be logged in to post a comment Login