Fresh Tensions With Trump

Domestic Frustrations

Legal Questions Loom

Occupying The Middle Ground In Europe

Charlotte Salomon has worked in political communications, and was a Conservative candidate at the 2024 Election she is now studying for the bar.

We have built a comforting story around the idea of “digital natives”.

Teenagers, we’re told, are born into technology. They understand it instinctively. They are quicker, sharper, more adaptable than the adults trying to supervise them. And so we reassure ourselves that parents can manage it at home, that the state should keep out, that young people will figure it out.

It is an attractive argument. Some say it’s a Conservative one. I disagree.

Being a digital native does not mean being digitally protected. It does not mean understanding how data is harvested, how algorithms profile behaviour, or how consent operates in law.

Fluency is not comprehension. And confidence is not consent.

That is where this debate really starts.

Kemi Badenoch is right to argue that under-16s should not be on social media. It is no surprise that public support is growing. But beneath the surface of this debate lies something deeper that we cannot afford to ignore. This is not just about screen time, culture, or whether teenagers spend too many hours indoors. It is about data. It is about law. And it is about whether we are prepared to keep pretending that children are giving “informed consent” to systems they do not, and cannot, truly understand.

When Parliament set the digital age of consent at 13 under the Data Protection Act 2018, it chose the lowest age permitted under Article 8 of the UK GDPR. Thirteen. From that birthday onwards, a child can legally consent to the processing of their personal data by online services without parental involvement.

At the time, this was presented as pragmatic. Children were already online. The law needed to reflect reality. But the digital world of 2018 is not the digital world of 2026. And even then, we were asking the wrong question.

Under UK GDPR, consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” That is not a soft standard. It requires an individual to understand what data is collected, how it is used, who it is shared with, and what rights they retain.

Now ask yourself honestly: when was the last time you read a privacy policy in full? (No judgment). Consent fatigue is real, and all of us have succumbed to it at one time or another.

Now picture a 13-year-old inside an ecosystem engineered around infinite scroll, dopamine spikes, dark patterns, loot boxes, manufactured FOMO and relentless peer validation.

If we are going to talk seriously about social media and the online world, we have to understand the wider architecture of data-driven design. These platforms are not neutral public squares. They are commercial systems engineered to maximise engagement, harvest behavioural data and refine algorithmic targeting.

Children do not just use these platforms. They are manipulated to generate value for them.

They provide data they knowingly share: names, photos, messages. They emit data traces they never see: location metadata, device fingerprints, patterns of behaviour. And most significantly, they become the subject of inferred data created through algorithmic profiling. That is where the real power lies. Platforms do not simply observe behaviour. They model it. They predict it. They shape it. They monetize it.

A 13-year-old cannot meaningfully assess what it means for an AI system to construct a long-term psychological profile about them, one that influences what content they see, which products they are shown, which insecurities are targeted and which emotional triggers are most effective.

That is not informed consent. It is behavioural modelling at scale, wrapped in a tick box.

And here is where we find a deeper inconsistency in our laws.

Under contract law, minors lack full capacity. We recognise that a child should not be bound into complex commercial arrangements because they may not understand the implications.

In medical law, we go further still. We do not rely purely on age. We assess maturity under the principle of Gillick competence. We test whether there is real understanding.

Yet online, we allow a 13-year-old to bind themselves to opaque data processing agreements longer than most mortgage documents.

Why is digital autonomy treated as less serious than medical autonomy?

The uncomfortable answer is economic. Data is profitable. Children are valuable markets. Capture attention early and you shape habits that can last a lifetime. And the most dangerous part is that it is largely invisible. Data extraction does not look like harm. Algorithms do not arrive with warning labels. There is no obvious moment of damage, no visible bruise.

But after a while, the consequences begin to surface. Rising anxiety. Broken sleep. Thinning attention spans. Children who feel constantly watched, compared and judged. The NHS has opened clinics for gaming disorders. Schools report collapsing concentration. Parents describe children who simply cannot disengage.

We are getting something wrong.

It is to the Conservatives’ credit that this is now being confronted directly. Kemi Badenoch’s position recognises something simple and profoundly conservative: childhood is a protected category in British law. We draw lines around it. We set boundaries. We accept that some freedoms require maturity. So, where is everyone else?

Yes, some will call this paternalistic. But we are paternalistic in every serious area of childhood. We regulate. We set age limits. We draw lines. We do it because we understand developmental reality. We should do it here because we understand technological reality too.

The Conservative pledge to ban social media for under-16s is not radical. It is responsible. It is not nanny state politics. It is proportionate, measured, and in step with international peers. And it restores coherence to a legal framework that currently rests on a polite fiction.

A serious country protects its children. Not just in the physical world, but in the digital one too.

If we cannot draw a boundary around childhood online, then we have quietly decided that profit matters more than protecting children.

That is not a conservative position. And it is not one we should accept.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) held its first Youth Guarantee jobs fair in Blackpool. But as always with the DWP, it’s not all it seems – as the fair was packed with military and weapons manufacturers.

DWP Youth Guarantee plows on

As the Canary has previously reported, The Youth Guarantee is the department’s scheme to force young people into work. The DWP claims this is a supportive process, but it’s clear it’s to kick people off Universal Credit into low-paid jobs.

The DWP boasted that

Thousands of young people were brought together with employers today for the first ever jobs fair for the Youth Guarantee

The fair brought 94 employers to Blackpool Winter Gardens, however the first red flag is the type of employment on offer. While there were full time jobs, the DWP highlights that many were offering  “apprenticeships, traineeships, work experience placements.” Translation: low or below minimum wage pay.

We also have to look at the kind of employers that the DWP were pushing on young people. While there were the Blackpool staples of the Pleasure Beach and Leyland Trucks, some were not as wholesome.

Heavy military and weapons presence

It’s almost expected that there’ll be a heavy military presence at these things by now. So naturally, the Royal Air Force and the UK Armed Forces were there to seduce working-class kids with the promise of a stable income, a roof over their heads and “duty”.

Also present were the police force, but this is the rare occasion where the police being somewhere was a good thing. It was reported by local press that the police apprehended a local man who tried to attack Blackpool South MP Chris Webb.

Even more worryingly, there were a number of companies there that have links to defence and the arms trade at the fair.

Arms giant BAE Systems was present at the fair. Last year they celebrated record profits of blood money from the Middle East and beyond.

Also in attendance was Composites UK, a trade association for

companies working in the UK’s fibre-reinforced polymer composite supply chain

However the trade body includes many composite suppliers to Israel’s deadly Elbit Systems. Some of whom were recruiting at the fair, Teledyne and Brookehouse Aerospace. Both also supply to arms companies Leonardo, BAE, and Raytheon.

These weren’t the only dangerous recruiters. The fair also included engineering giant Babcock International, “defence manufacturer” the WEC Group and CNC Robotics. DWP chief Pat McFadden can be seen high-fiving one of their creepy little robots at the start of the DWP’s propaganda video about the fair. The company also supplies robotics to the defence industry.

Also in attendance were Safran Nacelles, a subsidiary of Safran Group. They’re a major French aerospace, defence, and security company. Make UK trade association were also there, who have a defence sector offshoot. It’s “strategic partners” are a who’s who of the arms industry, with many links to Israel’s genocide including BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales, and Pearson Engineering.

The DWP is forcing our kids into war

After the event, McFadden headed up a round-table with 16 employers from the manufacturing industry. The DWP says he “secured support” for the Youth Guarantee from these “major players”.

However of the 16 employers, 7 of them had links to war. Babcock International, Teledyne, Brookhouse Aerospace, Safran Nacelles, Make UK, WEC Group and CNC Robotics supplies were all part of the discussion.

The DWP talks a lot about wanting to “support” young people into work. However, it’s clear that their only alternative to low-paid, low-skilled work is to become a cog in a machine for war mongers and profiteers. That or be used as cannon fodder in rich men’s wars.

It might’ve been the Tories that wanted to bring back National Service, but it’s Labour who are coercing young people into the arms and military complex.

At least the Tories were upfront about wanting to force our kids to die in wars.

Featured image via the Canary

Over the weekend, Kelly joined her mum Sharon Osbourne at the Brits, where they delivered a speech in honour of Ozzy Osbourne’s posthumous Lifetime Achievement prize.

On Monday, Kelly reposted another message from fellow rock star’s daughter Mia Tyler, which admonished those who would “dissect someone’s appearance instead of honouring their courage” while they are grieving.

“Public grief is not public property,” the original post read. “Grief can change a person. That doesn’t make their body a topic for debate. Before you comment on someone’s body, consider the possibility that they’re carrying something heavier than your opinion.

“It takes real strength to stand in the public eye, accepting accolades for their late iconic father and hold themselves together in front of the world. The least we can do is show the same grace in return. Kindness costs nothing. Cruelty costs character.”

Mia’s post concluded: “It’s unsettling how quickly people will dissect someone’s appearance instead of honouring their courage. If you have the energy to comment, you have the energy to be kind. Choose accordingly.”

UK PM Keir Starmer gave his best attempt to tell Trump off in the House of Commons. This comes in response to Trump’s recent jab at the British government’s supposed delay to jump on board with the war in Iran. Trump said that Starmer “took far too long” to allow the US military to use a UK base in Cyprus.

Of course, just hours after Starmer publicly announced that permission had been granted, the base was attacked in retaliation for facilitating the US invasion of Iran. And, it must be noted, this is a war which many ex-military officials in the US have already labelled “illegal.”

So, when Starmer’s ‘rebuke’ of Trump did come, it fell rather flat.

Starmer strong man act falls flat

Stating that the US President has ‘expressed his disagreement’ with the UK, the weak PM attempted to look strong by justifying his decision as one of British national interest. Starmer said:

The lessons of history have taught us that it is important when we make decisions like this, that we establish there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing.

That is one of the lessons from Iraq, and that there’s a viable thought-through plan with an objective that can be achieved or has a viable prospect of being achieved.

He continued:

This government does not believe in regime change from the skies.

But, it does believe in assisting US-led regime change via supplying airbases?

This belated ‘strong man’ impression offered by Starmer has been received as the damp squib it is. After all, the human rights barrister-turned-leader has had no problem supporting his allies in their numerous war crimes. He has been perfectly happy shielding war criminals responsible for a genocide against Palestinians.

Pressure from MAGA

However, this bravado exposes how impossible it is to have a diplomatic relationship with the demagogue US President. It is well known how Trump uses economic and military warfare to get his own way, highlighting the terrifying precedent being set by the rogue president for ‘diplomacy’.

Now our government is under pressure by the MAGA administration to get involved with their illegal war on Iran, it is more important than ever that we demand a divergence from the US. It cannot be understated that this aggression threatens chaos and suffering across the region, a chaos will undoubtedly and deservedly reach our shores.

Keir Starmer, “President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes”

“But it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest”

“That is what I’ve done and I stand by it”

Advertisement

👏 pic.twitter.com/6T29Xqb0c5

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) March 2, 2026

It’s clear Starmer is going to great pains to differentiate between offensive and defensive military actions. But, the fact the UK is involved at all makes Starmer’s so-called ‘challenge’ to Trump look pathetic.

Iran has the right to retaliate under international law to threats posed against its sovereign territory. With our diplomatic cover and spineless behaviour, the UK is supporting the existential threat Iran faces from the US and Israel. Ignoring that, the UK Prime Minister appears to apply international law selectively – invoking and interpreting it in ways that shield the United States and Israel from accountability.

Advertisement

“Special relationship” under strain

Like a child throwing his toys out of the pram as per usual, Trump has already retaliated. He stated today that our relationship is now strained, indicating the cost that comes through legitimising Trump’s rogue, illegal and escalating decisions:

US President Trump has lashed out at Britain’s PM Starmer for refusing to back Washington’s war against Iran, warning that the so-called “special relationship” now faces strain.

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/mSvQSyvKdN pic.twitter.com/c7YsJNdxVM

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 3, 2026

Our own Joe Glenton wrote in February about just how occupied we are by the US, signaling the tightrope and danger we are in if Trump is allowed to keep ignoring the rule of law. He wrote:

The UK is even more of a US military colony than we thought. New documents found in the US War Department’s website show that Britain hosts double the number of American military facilities previously reported.

Glenton finished with a vital rallying cry:

The truth is that Britain is a vassal state and colony of the United States. We say the UK would better off if it was not. US bases, troops and spies need to go.

Ordinary people thankfully can recognise legality better than our barrister PM. One X account commented on Starmer’s woefully manipulative speech, pointing out the legally obvious:

I’m just gonna leave this here.

UN Charter:
“Under international law, the UK can be held responsible if it permits its territory to be used by another state to commit an “internationally wrongful act” (such as an illegal war) if it has knowledge of the circumstances.”

It’s hard to believe Starmer doesn’t know this is illegal, especially due to his maneuvering and apparent discomfort with involvement in offensive actions. Maybe the UK PM is only happy with one illegal bombing campaign at a time, having been complicit in the genocide and heavily funded by the Israel lobby. Needless to say, his pushback to Trump is really just semantics and wordplay.

Curtis Daly pointed out on X just how easy this decision should have been:

So he should have told Trump to piss off when he asked to use our military bases. Starmer is complicit. https://t.co/RWI06XUTIq

— Curtis Daly (@CurtisDaly_) March 2, 2026

Careful the company you keep, Starmer

This horrific war of aggression that has already killed hundreds of Iranians and wounded hundreds more has to be the wake-up call for allies of the US. The US is falling, it is in its final days after repeatedly decimating any respect previously afforded to it. It being allowed to maintain control of the world order will put all countries on the backfoot, whilst prioritising the interests that Trump serves: the super-rich and powerful.

This aggressive US world order will undoubtedly escalate, and it has never been more objectively clear that a thug sits in the White House. If we don’t want Trump’s angry, bloodthirsty glare to fall on the UK we must urge our spineless PM to actually object to the US and Israel’s unaccountable war on Iran.

Featured image via the Canary

Campaigners from Fossil Free London formed a human red line along the riverbank directly across from Westminster on 3 March. All dressed in red, they held a long red ribbon and signs reading ‘Hold the Line’ and ‘Stop Rosebank’.

The demonstration comes as the government prepares to decide the fate of the Rosebank oil field. It’s the largest undeveloped oil field in the North Sea. However, the Scottish courts overturned its original approval in January 2025.

The court ruling demanded that the project’s primary owner, Norwegian state oil giant Equinor, provide a fuller assessment of the project’s climate impacts before any approval could proceed. Critics argue that burning Rosebank’s total reserves would produce more carbon dioxide than the world’s 28 lowest-income countries emit in a year combined. Also, the vast majority of the oil would go for export. So it wouldn’t be lowering UK energy bills or improving energy security.

The Rosebank development would also hand substantial tax relief from the public purse to Equinor. Equinor’s profits flow largely into Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. A share of profits would also go to the Delek Group, an Israeli fuel conglomerate. The UN has flagged this company for human rights violations in Palestine.

Joanna Warrington, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:

Whilst people across the country are watching their bills skyrocket and extreme weather events and climate disasters fill their phone screens: our government stands at a crossroads.

At this point in climate collapse, approving any new oil and gas project is tantamount to climate denial. It is like a doctor diagnosing a patient with lung cancer and handing them a cigarette.

A red line must be drawn. Kier Starmer, stop Rosebank.

Featured image via Fossil Free London

What is “frictionmaxxing”?

This idea might not be entirely new

I took a small step towards “frictionmaxxing” and was instantly convinced