Connect with us

Politics

Are We Giving Children Smartphones Too Soon?

Published

on

Helen Ness-Gifford is headteacher at Pipers Corner School

Something rather strange has happened to childhood.

It is 2026, and we have never been more conscious of keeping children safe. We strap toddlers into increasingly sophisticated car seats, watch babies sleeping through cameras and have transformed safeguarding in our schools.

And yet a few years later, we put a smartphone into those same small hands.

We carefully control the physical world children encounter, while giving them access to a digital one of almost unimaginable scale – often long before they have the maturity to make sense of everything they will find there.

Advertisement

Except even that doesn’t quite describe what has changed. Our children aren’t simply accessing the online world. The online world is accessing them.

Algorithms seek their attention; strangers can enter their bedrooms without opening a door; and other people’s opinions, lifestyles and judgements follow them home from school.

After more than 30 years in education, I don’t believe the fundamental needs of children have changed. But the world in which they are growing up has – and we should not assume that will leave children unchanged.

We are seeing significant concern about anxiety and other mental health difficulties among young people. It would be too simplistic to blame smartphones alone, but equally foolish to ignore growing evidence associating aspects of online life with anxiety, disrupted sleep, social comparison and poorer wellbeing.

Advertisement

Four years ago, I was sitting around our dinner table with my daughter, now 26, and her friends when they told me they thought theirs might be the last generation for whom “likes” had never really mattered.

One had a 16-year-old sister whose adolescence, they felt, was fundamentally different. Social media wasn’t something she used alongside her life; increasingly, it was where part of that life was lived.

That conversation has stayed with me.

Growing up has always involved working out who you are. But today’s young people are doing that in a culture where everyone can broadcast an opinion – and algorithms determine which opinions they will hear most loudly.

Advertisement

We also need to talk about addiction. Not every child who loves their phone is addicted, but compulsive patterns of use are real. I am not sure parents always realise quite what their children are being asked to resist. We ask developing brains to exercise self-control against sophisticated systems designed to capture their attention and learn how to retain it.

And every hour captured displaces something else: sleep, reading, conversation, physical activity, family life, even boredom.

We see this particularly clearly on school trips. My school, Pipers Corner, has always been phone-free during the school day, and more recently we have extended this to trips. Without phones competing for attention, pupils engage more, notice where they are and, perhaps most strikingly, seem to enjoy themselves more. They talk to people they might not otherwise have spoken to.

Helen Ness-Gifford is headteacher at Pipers Corner School
Helen Ness-Gifford is headteacher at Pipers Corner School

Previous generations had plenty of “screen time”. Families sat around a television together. Children saw things they didn’t understand, but an adult might explain, challenge or simply say, “That’s nonsense.” The screen became a conversation.

Yet a smartphone in a bedroom is different: private, portable and personalised. Children can encounter things they don’t understand privately and repeatedly, with nobody else even knowing that a conversation needs to happen.

Advertisement

So, I welcome new restrictions such as overnight social media curfews and turning off addictive features that keep children scrolling into the night – but perhaps not for the obvious reason.

I don’t believe regulation alone will solve this. Some of the world’s most powerful technology companies have built hugely successful businesses around capturing and monetising human attention, including children’s.

What I welcome is the message regulation sends to parents: we have learned something about risk.

When I was a child, I was allowed to sit on my mother’s lap in the passenger seat of my father’s car. My parents weren’t reckless. It was simply normal. Then our understanding of the risk changed, regulation followed and eventually parental behaviour changed too.

Advertisement

I wonder whether we are approaching a similar moment with smartphones.

Restrictions give parents permission to pause and to say “not yet”. But ultimately restriction isn’t enough, because children must eventually navigate the digital world independently.

I tell parents of 11-year-olds that their daughters will drive one day. They will learn the rules, develop judgement and eventually drive perfectly safely.

Nobody suggests we should therefore hand them the car keys at 11.

Advertisement

We protect children, then teach them, then gradually allow greater freedom as their judgement develops. Why should the digital world be different?

Our job is not to tell young people what to think about technology, but to teach them how to think about it.

Government can help create safer roads. Technology companies should be required to build safer vehicles. But parents and schools still have to teach children to drive.

And perhaps we need to be brave enough not to hand over the keys quite so soon.

Advertisement

Helen Ness-Gifford is Headmistress at Pipers Corner School in High Wycombe.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Reform Civil War Resumes As Senior Member Quits Party

Published

on

Reform 'Suspends Senior Figure' After He Slams Zia Yusuf

A senior Reform UK figure has quit as the party’s simmering civil war re-ignited.

Tim Montgomerie, who defected from the Tories last year, said Nigel Farage needs to “get a grip” as he singled out Zia Yusuf for criticism.

He said the party leader needs to bring his home affairs spokesman “under control” if he is to re-assert his authority.

Montgomerie was suspended by Reform last month in the wake of comments he made about Yusuf on a podcast.

Advertisement

He said “Nigel has fallen out of love with Zia” and called for Yusuf to be more of a “team player”.

Montgomerie had initially planned to appeal his suspension, insisting that he had only been making “constructive criticism” of Reform in an attempt to make the party more electable.

But after talks with Reform chief whip Lee Anderson on Tuesday, he decided to quit.

He told the BBC: “I think they wanted me back in the party but meekly, and I wasn’t prepared to do that.”

Advertisement

Montgomerie added: “Nigel needs to get a grip, he needs to lead the party.

“The one thing he’s been brilliant at is policing the right and stopping [far-right activist] Tommy Robinson joining.

“But for the sake of his legacy and the sake of decency he needs to sort it out, and bring people like Zia [Yusuf] under control.”

He said Reform was now “at a junction” and must decide what type of party it wants to be.

Advertisement

“They haven’t replaced the Conservatives which was plan A,” he said.

“I fear a battle of attrition between the two parties which will helps no one. The real danger now on the fight for political turf is that they go after sectional interests.

“Does Reform want to be a party of government or does it want to stand at the edge and just change the debate?”

A Reform UK spokesman said: “We wish Tim the best for the future and thank him for his support.”

Advertisement

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

National Television Awards 2026 Winners: Full List Of NTAs Recipients This Year

Published

on

National Television Awards 2026 Winners: Full List Of NTAs Recipients This Year

The National Television Awards took place on Tuesday night, recognising some of the biggest achievements in telly over the past 12 months.

It was a big night for Alan Carr, who accepted the award for Best Reality Competition on behalf of The Celebrity Traitors (beating the regular Traitors in the process) as well as celebrating a surprise win in the Special Recognition category.

Emmerdale also scooped two prizes, including an acting win for Woolpack regular Jeff Hordley, who has played Cain Dingle for more than 25 years.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Sir David Attenborough pipped Claudia Winkleman, Alison Hammond, Stacey Solomon and regular winners Ant and Dec to the Best Presenter prize, and Michael McIntyre’s Big Show scooped the coveted Bruce Forsyth Entertainment Award for the second year running.

Vicky McClure also picked up her first ever NTA, beating an all-female shortlist in the Best Drama Performance category for her performance in the ITV drama Trigger Point.

Check out the full list of winners – including Strictly Come Dancing, This Morning, Gogglebox and Call The Midwife – as chosen by the voting public below…

New Drama

Advertisement

Returning Drama

Drama Performance

Vicky McClure (Trigger Point)

Comedy

Advertisement

Serial Drama

Serial Drama Performance

The Bruce Forsyth Entertainment Award

Michael McIntyre’s Big Show

Advertisement

TV Presenter

Sir David Attenborough (Secret Garden)

Factual Entertainment

Reality Competition

Advertisement

Reality Docuseries

Quiz Show

Authored Documentary

Our Girls: The Southport Families

Advertisement

Daytime

Special Recognition

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Sparks Outrage For ‘Disgusting’ Rant About 9/11 Hero

Published

on

Trump Sparks Outrage For 'Disgusting' Rant About 9/11 Hero

Donald Trump has been widely lambasted on social media after ranting about a revered hero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and complaining about the man’s fame.

“They were sure they were going to die. Then suddenly, a rescuer appeared. They call him the man in the red bandana. Have you heard that term? The man in the red bandana has become more famous than me. I don’t like it. Very unhappy, but he’s become much more famous than me,” Trump said during a Steele Across America event at the White House.

Welles Crowther, a 24-year-old equities trader and volunteer firefighter, was the “man in the red bandana.” He had been working on the 108th floor of the South Tower when United Airlines Flight 175 struck. Although Crowther died when the building collapsed, he is known to have rescued 18 people, leading many to safety from the 78th floor.

His heroics came to light in a 2002 New York Times article, where survivors recounted being saved by the “man in the red bandana.”

Advertisement

“Then, a man with a red bandana covering his nose and mouth suddenly appeared from the wreckage and smoke. He spoke in a calm voice and guided them to a stairway, leading them to safety. The man in the red bandana made three trips to the sky lobby, saving as many people as he could, until the burning building collapsed,” part of Crowther’s memorial page on the 9/11 Memorial website reads.

The memorial page further details that when Crowther’s mother read the story in The New York Times, she knew it had to be her son, as he had carried a red handkerchief since he was a child.

Trump posthumously awarded Crowther the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the ceremony.

Critics on social media quickly jumped on Trump’s remarks about Crowther being “more famous” than him.

Advertisement

Some criticised the president for being unable to not make every event about him in some way while others urged people not to let Trump’s remarks distract from Crowther’s heroic actions.

See more reactions to Trump’s remarks here:

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Stefany Shaheen, daughter of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, wins New Hampshire House primary

Published

on

Stefany Shaheen, daughter of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, wins New Hampshire House primary

The Shaheen political dynasty lives on in New Hampshire.

Stefany Shaheen, the eldest daughter of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), won Tuesday’s hotly contested Democratic primary for the state’s 1st District, defeating Maura Sullivan and a host of other rivals despite facing attacks that she was leaning on her well-known surname.

The seat, left open by Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas when he opted to run for Senate, is considered to be fairly competitive for the general election — former Vice President Kamala Harris won it by just two points in 2024.

Shaheen attempted to create distance from her mother throughout her campaign, rebuking the deal the senator helped broker to end last fall’s government shutdown and leaning into her public service in Portsmouth and medical-research advocacy on the trail.

Advertisement

Still, her family name helped her build an early polling lead and bank financial support.

Nearly $740,000 raised by Shaheen’s campaign came from donors who had previously given to her mother — 39 percent of total itemized campaign dollars, according to a POLITICO analysis. One of those donors told POLITICO the senator reached out last fall seeking their support for her daughter.

Sullivan, Shaheen’s main rival, attempted to weaponize the scion’s family ties in a year where the Democratic base has repeatedly spurned candidates with a perceived connection to the establishment.

The primary grew acrimonious in its closing weeks as Shaheen and Sullivan tangled over campaign donations and aired attack ads as polls showed a tightening race. The contest also underwent a rapid winnowing toward the end as two candidates dropped out; one, progressive Christian Urrutia, endorsed Shaheen.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Britain should not pay a penny in slavery reparations

Published

on

Britain should not pay a penny in slavery reparations

The pressure on British taxpayers to start coughing up money to fund reparations for the historic enslavement of Africans by some of their ancestors is mounting. In February, the African Union adopted a resolution proposed by its champion for reparations and Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, which identifies slavery as a crime against humanity. In March, the UN General Assembly passed Ghana’s resolution describing transatlantic chattel slavery as ‘the gravest crime against humanity’ and calling for reparations as ‘a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs’. While 123 states supported it, only three (Argentina, Israel and the US) opposed it, and 52 (including the UK) abstained.

This week, Jamaica has formally petitioned King Charles III, urging him to request legal advice from the judicial committee of the Privy Council – the final court of appeal – on whether Britain is obliged to provide a remedy for slavery and its enduring consequences. At this November’s gathering of Commonwealth leaders in Antigua and Barbuda, the former prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, has declared it ‘inconceivable’ that the issue of reparations won’t be at the heart of it.

Those pressing Britain from without have allies within. In March 2023, Labour MP Clive Lewis – supported by colleagues Nadia Whittome and Dawn Butler – called for the UK government to enter into ‘meaningful negotiations’ with Caribbean countries about reparations. The following month, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy demanded that then prime minister Rishi Sunak apologise ‘for our country’s role in slavery and colonialism’. And, since 2023, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien has been funding a parliamentary lobbying campaign for slavery reparations based in Lewis’s office.

Advertisement

Even David Lammy, until last year Britain’s foreign secretary, has expressed sympathy. Speaking as a backbench MP in June 2018, he said:

‘The Caribbean nations have been united in wanting to put the issue of reparations back on the table… It is important that this country hears and listens… Let us consider: what do reparations look like for those Caribbean nations? How do we make that work?’

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

Then, as shadow justice secretary in 2020: ‘The starting point is truth and reconciliation… we’re no longer in a society where we question notions like white privilege.’ Lammy said that ‘we have to discuss power and reckoning and repairing – and that to some extent is obviously financial’.

But the case for Britain paying reparations is historically and morally ludicrous. It depends on a cartoonishly simplistic – even racist – tale of whites exploiting blacks. Yet, as indicated by the subtitle of Martin Plaut’s 2025 book, Unbroken Chains: A 5,000-year History of African Enslavement, Africans had been busy enslaving other Africans for centuries before European traders first appeared off the coast of west Africa in the mid-1400s. Those they didn’t consume in human sacrifices, Africans sold first to the Romans and then to the Arabs. And when the Portuguese, Spanish and British came in search of African slaves, they didn’t have to venture inland to hunt them down. They simply waited on the coast for African slave-traders to bring them. Those African traders included the ancestors of many Ghanaians, among them – according to Alistair Parker’s recent History Reclaimed article – President Mahama himself.

Advertisement

It’s reckoned that Europeans transported 12.75million Africans across the Atlantic to the Americas. Of these, about a quarter were taken by the British. Caricom (an organisation of Caribbean states) and the African Union are keen to broadcast such figures. Others they’re keen to bury – in particular, the nine million Africans taken to the Mediterranean and the 12million transported to the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and west of India. Those Africans were first enslaved by other Africans and then sold to Arabs.

Let’s do what reparations advocates don’t do: be fair and put British involvement in proportion. In 1804, there were an estimated 45million chattel slaves around the world, of which the British share in the West Indies was just over one per cent. Of a total of at least 41million African slaves bought and transported across the Atlantic, the Sahara and the Indian Ocean, British merchants bought just under eight per cent, whereas Arabs were responsible for 37 per cent. But the original enslavers and traders of almost 100 per cent were other Africans. In the 1850s, the Fulani people of what is now northern Nigeria ran vast plantations employing four million slaves at any one time – more than the total transported to the Americas by the British in over 140 years.

What’s more, unlike any African nation, the British repented of their involvement in slave-trading and slavery, and in the early 1800s were among the first peoples in the history of the world to abolish them. They then used their imperial dominance to suppress the slave trade, not least in Africa itself. The Beninese historian, Abiola Félix Iroko, has written that, ‘When the slave trade was abolished [by the British], Africans were against abolition’. Indeed, according to Plaut, many of them are still against it. Today, the trade and the institution are alive and well in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Sudan and Libya.

Advertisement

That the African Union is pressing for British reparations for slavery is not only ludicrous – it’s outrageous, too. What’s more, it could cripple the Commonwealth, plunging it into rancorous disputes about the past and spooking private philanthropists otherwise keen to fund educational and environmental projects for the future. China, Russia and Iran would look on with glee.

The only reason Caribbean nations aren’t pressing their reparations case upon the Africans and Arabs is that they know they’d get short shrift. The British, however, look ripe for plucking, since our progressive elites have long loved to wallow in exaggerated guilt. Such indulgent virtue-signalling is about to get very expensive, costing us all. It needs to stop.

Nigel Biggar is a Conservative peer, Regius Professor emeritus of moral theology at the University of Oxford and author of Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt (Swift, 2025).

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Republicans are hoping ‘Trump-a-palooza’ isn’t only about Trump

Published

on

Republicans are hoping ‘Trump-a-palooza’ isn’t only about Trump

President Donald Trump will be at the center of this week’s GOP midterm convention. Many of his fellow Republicans are hoping he doesn’t make it all about him.

The parade of lawmakers, candidates, donors and party officials now headed to Dallas for the two-day spectacle are counting on Trump to make a compelling pitch on the national stage before voters hit the polls.

According to interviews with dozens of Republicans, they are largely hoping for a two-pronged approach aimed at getting the president’s committed supporters off the sidelines: a focus on what they call Democrats’ extreme positions and the accomplishments of the Republican Congress — most of which are now more than a year old.

“Communism vs. common sense,” Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) said in an interview, calling the event a “scene-setter” that should stay laser-focused on “what’s on the line” for voters in the election.

Advertisement

Republicans have reasons to be wary. Trump’s approval ratings are at record lows for his time in office, and many swing-district GOP lawmakers are torn between running from an unpopular president and alienating his base of committed supporters.

There is little evidence Trump is content to let rank-and-file Republicans run away from him. The first pair of national midterm ads funded by his cash-rich political operation put Trump at the very center.

One ad begins with businessman Dana White extolling Trump as “the toughest, most resilient person that I’ve ever met.”

The other is more up congressional Republicans’ alley, with a Trump voiceover running through a litany of tax cuts included in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Advertisement

Even if not all agree Trump is the party’s best spokesperson at this point, they are eager to see a new effort to promote the tax cuts, which were enacted in July 2025, and want to see them touted anew in Dallas.

“It’s incredibly important that we highlight what we’ve accomplished,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said in an interview. “That’s the perfect venue for that.”

“It’s a great opportunity for us to brag about what the Republican Party has done the last year and a half,” added Rep. Craig Goldman (R-Texas). “So certainly talking about the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While Van Orden and Goldman are attending the convention, which kicks off Wednesday and ends Thursday, many other lawmakers and candidates are staying back in their districts. Some of those Republicans said they have scheduling conflicts or simply want to campaign back home.

Advertisement

But there are also qualms about Trump’s obsession with priorities that many of them consider off-message ahead of the midterms — such as pressuring Congress to take up the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act.

As GOP lawmakers begged Trump to get serious about tackling the high cost of living, the president has instead openly scoffed at “affordability” as an issue concocted by Democrats to hurt Republicans.

He refused for months to help pass a major legislative package over the summer designed to help lower housing costs, and his trade wars and ongoing conflict with Iran have contributed to persistent inflation. A recent import deal designed to address rising beef prices came at the cost of upsetting American cattlemen.

Speaker Mike Johnson brushed off a question last week about the risk of having candidates show up at a Trump-focused event given his disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

“It was the president’s idea, which is why he’s getting credit for it, and it’s rightfully so,” Johnson said. “I think it’s going to be an extraordinary opportunity for us to get a couple of nights on national television to talk about our extraordinary record of achievement.”

Other Republicans said the president was well positioned to send a message of “promises made, promises kept.”

“Politics 101 is just telling folks what you’re going to do, and then come to Washington and do it, and then go back and tell them what you did,” said Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.). “When you look at President Trump’s agenda, securing the border, we’ve done that. That he wanted to make the tax cuts permanent, we’ve done that.”

“Peace through strength — and I think we have moved in that direction,” he added. “Obviously, we got detoured to this journey over in Iran.”

Advertisement

If there is one consensus message Republicans want the convention oriented around, it’s the choice between the legislative record Trump will be touting and a Democratic Party that they argue has moved way too far to the left — especially as progressive candidates, some of them democratic socialists, continue to win key primaries.

Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.), a deputy chair of the House GOP campaign arm, said “you’re going to see on full display each night a contrast that we’ve never seen before in politics.”

“You’ve got Republicans that are campaigning on commonsense ideas. You’ve got Democrats that are being drawn to the absolute most extreme left of their party,” he said. “So I expect each night to see that on full display.”

RNC national press secretary Natalie Baldassarre also said in a statement that the event would “put front and center Democrats’ desire to abolish police and prisons, raise costs, and strip away our freedoms,” while also promoting “Republicans’ historic achievements.”

Advertisement

“The Democratic Party has taken a turn for the worse recently,” added Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who is in a competitive race and not attending the convention. “America needs to be quite aware of that as they make their decision here in November.”

LaLota is just one of scores of Republican members who are choosing not to travel to the convention — which has a price tag of $25,000 and up for lawmakers attending — but who have an interest in how the event goes off and what impression it gives voters.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) called the midterm convention — the first held since Democrats did them in the late 1970s and early 1980s — “an interesting concept” and said he would be paying close attention to the size of the television audience. But he said he would be back in his safe red district campaigning.

“I’m going to look forward to listening to it on the radio as I’m driving down the road, going from one spot in my district to another,” he said.

Advertisement

Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court rejects bid to revive Missouri’s pro-GOP redistricting before midterms

Published

on

Supreme Court rejects bid to revive Missouri’s pro-GOP redistricting before midterms

A ruling from the Supreme Court on Tuesday means Missouri voters will likely go to the polls this fall under the same congressional map used two years ago, not one Republican state lawmakers adopted to try to pick up an additional House seat for the GOP.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned down a Republican-backed emergency appeal that sought to block a Missouri Supreme Court ruling last week restoring earlier district lines and ordering voters to weigh in on the redistricting plan in November for use in future elections.

Kavanaugh issued the ruling because he handles urgent matters arising in the 8th Circuit, which includes Missouri. Kavanaugh issued no explanation of his decision, nor did he indicate that he referred the matter to the full court, as is customary in significant cases. Missouri officials could ask another justice for relief, but such requests are almost never granted.

The justices rarely disturb state courts’ decisions about matters like the referendum petitions in Missouri that sought to put the redistricting before voters for approval.

Advertisement

However, lawyers for Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins warned the Supreme Court that the state faced “disaster” and “unprecedented chaos” in part because primaries already took place under the new lines last month.

Democrats argued any last-minute chaos to Missouri’s election administration was intentionally created by Hoskins, pointing to Republican leaders in the state arguing that delaying the decision on the redistricting referendum would benefit Republicans.

President Donald Trump denounced the state supreme court ruling last week.

“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America!” he wrotein a post on Truth Social. “Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for “Justice” in Missouri!”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The reason why sweatshirts have a V under the collar

Published

on

The reason why sweatshirts have a V under the collar

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”f8a4cbec-d415-4320-867f-5d6a8bccc232″}).render(“6aa01754e4b086ecc55d618e”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Can ‘Legs Up The Wall’ Pose Improve Vein Health?

Published

on

Can 'Legs Up The Wall' Pose Improve Vein Health?

I was scrolling on Instagram and a video stopped me in my tracks. Lifestyle content creator Katey Brigham was discussing how “one of the best things that a woman can do is legs-up-the-wall, almost every night”.

Legs-up-the-wall, or viparita karani, is a yoga pose which could help improve circulation, reduce lower-leg swelling, and aid relaxation, according to Cleveland Clinic.

“Our veins are going to age, and we never ever think about that,” Brigham said in a reel, suggesting that to improve vein health, people can simply lay down and lean their legs up against the wall for a few minutes each day.

“Vein health probably isn’t something most of us think about until we notice visible veins, swelling or aching in our legs,” Dr Nikki Ramskill, a GP verified on Doctify and founder of The Female Health Doctor Clinic, told HuffPost UK.

Advertisement

But our veins have an important job to do in the body – returning blood back towards the heart, often working against gravity when we’re standing or sitting.

“As we age, the valves inside the veins can become less effective, making it easier for blood to pool in the legs. This can contribute to varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency,” Dr Ramskill explained.

Can putting your legs up against the wall improve vein health?

The doctor notes that while it’s not a perfect solution, it can certainly help with circulation.

Advertisement

“Elevating the legs can use gravity to help blood and fluid return towards the heart, so someone who experiences mild leg swelling or heaviness after being on their feet all day may find it temporarily relieving,” she explained.

“You don’t specifically need to lie on the floor with your legs against a wall, though – elevating your legs with a stool can help.”

That said, she notes it’s not a ‘detox’, won’t prevent every blood clot, and it isn’t a substitute for regular movement or treatment if you have underlying venous disease.

There are also some people who should steer clear of this pose. Per Cleveland Clinic, these include: people with glaucoma, those with conditions that cause excessive fluid volume in the body (including people with liver failure, kidney failure and heart failure), and those with unmanaged high blood pressure.

Advertisement

If you can’t do legs up the wall, or aren’t really interested, one of the best (and simplest) things you can do for your vein health is to move regularly, Dr Ramskill added.

“I’d actually put walking and regular movement much higher [than lying with legs raised] on the list for everyday vein health,” she said.

“Your calf muscles are one of your body’s natural mechanisms for helping venous blood travel back towards the heart, so keeping them moving is remarkably useful.”

People who spend lots of time sitting down or travel frequently should aim to get up and walk around regularly throughout the day. The doctor suggested even simple ankle pumps and calf raises while sitting can keep the muscles working.

Advertisement

Avoiding smoking and maintaining a healthy weight are also key for supporting healthy vein function.

Leg changes to watch out for

If you have visible veins, the doctor said “don’t panic” as spider veins and varicose veins are incredibly common, particularly as we get older.

She ended: “The important thing is knowing when a change is more than cosmetic: persistent swelling, pain, skin discolouration, wounds that aren’t healing or a sudden change in one leg are all reasons to seek medical advice.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Jewish Groups Condemn Ed Miliband Over West Bank Sanctions

Published

on

Jewish Groups Condemn Ed Miliband Over West Bank Sanctions

Jewish groups have condemned Ed Miliband after he announced sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The foreign secretary triggered a furious diplomatic row as he announced a “reset” of the UK’s relations with Israel.

In a statement to MPs, Miliband accused Israeli settlers in the West Bank of “ethnic cleansing” as he vowed to take action against those who provide services including finance and real estate for settlement expansion.

“All too often, the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this and worse, members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians,” he said.

Advertisement

Miliband’s statement was welcomed by the vast majority of Labour MPs, but the Israeli government responded by announcing the closure of the British consulate in Jerusalem.

The Jewish Leadership Council said the sanctions on trade with West Bank settlements “risks becoming a de facto boycott of Israel, giving legitimacy to those who reject Israel’s very existence”.

“The government is simply yielding to pressure from the most extreme elements of British society,” they said in a statement.

“They will continue to push the government to take increasingly radical action against Israel, to the detriment of peace in the Middle East and community relations in the UK.”

Advertisement

The Board of Deputies of British Jews expressed their “deep regret” at Miliband’s announcement.

In a statement, they said: “We have warned the UK government that it should know that protesters who cry ‘From the river to the sea’ will not be placated by any measures short of the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.”

France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden have all joined the UK is slapping sanctions on Israeli settlers today.

In a joint statement, the countries confirmed this action follows steps already taken by the Netherlands and Belgium.

Advertisement

Speaking before Miliband’s statement, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, accused the UK government of “discrimination against Jews”.

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025