4 min read48 min

The House of Lords will again today (Wednesday) vote on a cross-party amendment, tabled by Lord Nash, on raising the age limit to 16 for harmful social media. The vote comes amid Louis Theroux’s recent documentary on the “manosphere”, which has brought into view what many of us working on the frontline have been witnessing for years. For doctors, teachers, and youth workers, this is not a sudden crisis. It is a predictable outcome.

We have watched, in real time, as young people’s understanding of relationships, identity, and self-worth has been shaped not by families or schools, but by algorithm-driven ecosystems that reward extremity, outrage, and division. At a recent education leadership conference, a teacher reflected that there had been a noticeable change in boys’ behaviour in just a single term. And in clinical and community settings, the impact is just as stark. A mother of a 14-year-old girl recently described sitting down with her daughter to talk about relationships, only to find that the way boys in her year were speaking about girls was, in her words, “heartbreaking.” These are not isolated observations; they are warning signs.

It is easy, in moments like this, to default to outrage or to dismiss the figures highlighted in Theroux’s documentary as caricatures: exaggerated, fringe, almost absurd. But that would be a serious mistake. What matters is not just the individuals at the centre, but the ecosystem around them. Their ideas do not stay contained at the extremes; they diffuse, soften, and normalise as they travel. What begins as overt misogyny at the top is repackaged into irony, “banter,” or pseudo-self-improvement further down the chain. By the time it reaches younger audiences, it is often unrecognisable as ideology and therefore far more difficult to challenge. This trickle-down effect must not be underestimated.

It is also uncomfortable, but necessary, to acknowledge that this culture does not emerge in isolation. When those in positions of political or social power express misogynistic attitudes, it confers legitimacy. The “manosphere” is not an aberration; it is, in part, an amplification of signals already present in the wider culture.

It is into this space, between glacially slow research, reactive policy, a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and, let’s face it, a generational identity crisis, that a highly organised, highly profitable industry has stepped, fronted by so-called “alpha male” influencers. But strip away the branding, and what remains is something far less aspirational. These figures do not model secure, grounded masculinity. What they often project, thinly veiled beneath performance, is insecurity, fragility, and unresolved attachment needs. The relentless emphasis on control, dominance, emotional detachment, and transactional relationships is not a sign of strength; it is a defence against vulnerability. And crucially, it is being monetised.

This is not simply ideology; it is exploitation. A pyramid-like system in which a small number of influencers profit from amplifying dissatisfaction and grievance. They sell certainty to the uncertain, status to the insecure, and belonging to the isolated. Courses, memberships, exclusive communities, all built on the promise that if you adopt this worldview, your discomfort will disappear. It will not. Instead, young men and boys, many already navigating loneliness and confusion, are drawn deeper into a system that depends on keeping them dissatisfied. Because resolution does not sell. Insecurity does.

Those engaging with this content are not the problem. They are the market. What they are offered is not genuine support or growth, but a script: that their struggles are caused by women, and that the solution lies in power, withdrawal, or contempt. It is a compelling narrative precisely because it simplifies complexity and because it externalises pain.

So yes, regulation matters. But we must be clear: this is not a space where light-touch measures will suffice. We do not allow children unrestricted access to gambling platforms, predatory financial schemes, or harmful substances. We recognise that certain environments are developmentally inappropriate and potentially dangerous. The same principle must apply here.

Raising the age limit to 16 for harmful social media is not about censorship. It is about safeguarding. Delaying exposure to highly polarised, adult ideological content gives young people the time to develop the cognitive and emotional capacity required to critically evaluate what they encounter. Without that foundation, they are not engaging freely; they are being shaped by individuals whose business model depends on influence, not truth.

I urge the Lords to once again vote for Lord Nash’s amendment. If they don’t, we are already seeing in some areas what the national consequences might be.

Dr Lauren Bull is safeguarding lead at Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust and is a TedxNHS speaker

Following its operation to torch and destroy the joint venture between Elbit Systems and LPP Holding in the Czech Republic, a newly launched group has threatened to release restricted documents in an ultimatum.

The Earthquake Faction has released its second communiqué, where it threatens to release restricted documents taken from the site in Pardubice, Czech Republic. The group says it will do this unless LPP Holding releases a statement cutting ties with Elbit Systems and denouncing the occupation of Palestine.

The group gave a limited view of one of the documents, and set a deadline for 20 April for LPP Holding to respond.

LPP Holding has been publicly in partnership with the Israeli company since October 2023. Its COO stated, in relation to the Pardubice site, that:

one of the projects we are preparing with Elbit involves the Israeli army.

Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest weapons company. It manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. And it describes its drones as the “backbone” of the Israeli military.

The Earthquake Faction also took aim at all companies that work with Elbit Systems, demanding public statements they have cut ties and threatening action at their sites.

The full communiqué:

Communiqué #2

As the roof of Elbit and LPP Holding’s facility collapsed, with it went their partnership.

Advertisement

LPP Holding has spent the length of a live streamed genocide boasting about their collaboration and support. They collaborated with Elbit Systems as our comrades in Palestine were murdered and maimed, while children were obliterated in fractions of a second by precision technologies made in factories like this Pardubice site, operated by cowards in air conditioned offices.

Underlining their sniveling cowardliness is the sudden public back-stepping, spin and panic only when they realize their power to take life can be shattered by a few people with conscience. Your panic and embarrassment flaps around in the wind for the world to see; after all what kind of “defense” company doesn’t have an alarm?

They know there is no safe corner of this earth for collaborators in the genocide of our comrades in Palestine. We live in the belly of this wretched beast, across continents, countries and cities that these companies operate in. Every company that works with Elbit Systems is a target, and we will target you where and when we choose.

To LPP Holding: we have taken your restricted documents and burned the rest to the ground. You have until 20th April 07:00 UTC to publicly cut all ties with Elbit Systems, and denounce the barbaric occupation of Palestine, or will we release these documents to the public.

Advertisement

For all others who work with Elbit you have two options: wait for us, or release a public statement with proof that you have cut ties with Elbit Systems.

About Elbit Systems and LPP Holding

Elbit Systems is Israel’s biggest weapons producer, which manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. It also supplies the Israeli military with munitions, missiles and electronic warfare.

LPP Holding is “a proud weapons supplier to the Zionist state”, says the Earthquake Faction, marketing its array of companies as “powered by Artificial Intelligence”. The holding, and its subsidiaries, is a key strategic partner of Elbit Systems in the Czech Republic. It receives funding from the Czech government for the development of AI-guided unmanned aerial and ground vehicles.

About The Earthquake Faction

The Earthquake Faction describes itself as:

an internationalist underground network that targets key sites critical to the Zionist entity. We aim to destroy all limbs of the Empire from within, by any means effective.

Featured image via the Earthquake Faction

James Starkie is Founding Partner at communications consultancy 5654 & Co. He worked on Vote Leave in 2016 and was a Special Adviser in Government during Theresa May’s and Boris Johnson’s premierships.

Over the past few months more than one person has brought up the story of the Canadian right to me, specifically the rise of a party in the 90’s called Reform and the demise of their more longstanding party of the right, the Progressive Conservative’s.

It has been cited in various conversations, particularly ahead of the last Canadian election when the leader of the party created out of the merger of these two parties, Pierre Poilievre, went into the election as favourite but ended up losing, the election and his seat.

I was therefore interested to understand more about the history of the Canadian right, as well as what are the similarities and differences when it comes to UK politics given the rise of our own Reform Party. As well as speaking to several people who have worked in Canadian politics I found the book  Full Circle: Death and Resurrection In Canadian Conservative Politics by Bob Plamondon incredibly insightful and a very good overview of the Canadian right and would highly recommend this book.

At this point I would also like to caveat this and set out my own view.

One of the differences, as a quick glance at Canadian politics will tell you, is that the history of the Canadian right is one of division and a terminal life in opposition. Whereas the British Conservatives can call themselves the party of Government in our sceptered Isle that role in Canada is occupied by the Liberal Party, which is a party of the centre left and one much more practical than our own Labour Party.

This is an important difference to me.

The Tories here in the UK have weathered many a storm and I personally believe they will endure, furthermore I do not therefore see a merger as inevitable, as some may do. This is not to ignore the challenges they face, nor ignore the reasons why some traditional Conservative voters may be unhappy or angry but rather to believe that trust can be rebuilt.

Division on the right is relatively new in the UK and historically the Tories have had to build out election winning coalitions from this point with little opposition to their right, combining traditional centre right voters with a broader coalition more often than not through hard economic competence and pragmatism.

In Canada meanwhile this has not been the case.

The rise of Reform in Canada arose around the end of a period of government for the Progressive Conservative’s [PC’s] although this was more in response to an anger over economic handling. Specifically the failure, in the eyes of Reform Canada founder, Preston Manning, to tackle the national debt.

Manning, seen as a charismatic populist leader, rode a wave of discontent among parts of the Canadian right hungry for real economic reform at a time when Mulroney’s PC government was failing to replicate  major economic reforms of Reagan and Thatcher in the USA and UK respectively.

This was seen as a real missed opportunity and blew open a division in the PCs among the more economical liberal wing of the party, blue Conservatives, and those with a more social democratic bent, the red Conservatives.

This had been simmering for some time and as with any insurgent political movement, had hit upon the right time. Manning wrote in a thesis that ‘present national party leaders and federal politicians, especially those affiliated with the PC’s, should recognise that if the Canadian political situation continued to degenerate, and if the cause of conservatism continues to suffer and decline, not for the lack of merit or a willingness on the part of the Canadian people to support modern Conservative principles or policies, but rather because of unnecessary dissension among politicians and parties, the idea of establishing a wholly new political party committed to the social conservative positions will find an ever increasing number of advocates and supporters amongst concerned and aroused Canadian public.’

Written before the creation of the party, this is insightful as it lays the argument that Manning didn’t see the creation of a new party of the right desirable but rather necessary because of a lack of one in existence. That is the PC’s had become too much like the existing Liberal Party and therefore leaving a vacancy.

What’s more, and to some degree contradictory, according to the author of Full Circle: Death and Resurrection In Canadian Conservative Politics, Bob Plamadon, Manning though ‘did not accept that Reform was really another Conservative party, because he did not want to debate an inherent and obvious strategic floor flaw: that the Reform party was splitting voters with the Tories and thereby electing Liberals. This was to be a tension and live issue for the next decade.’

The Reform breakthrough came in the 1992 Canadian election, when from nowhere, they won 52 out of 295 seats leaving the Tories, who had been in Government, on just 2 seats. However while they improved on this performance in the subsequent election, gaining 60 seats and becoming the official opposition, the PCs came back winning 18 seats while also nearly matching the Reform vote share [19.3 per cent to 18.8 ]. The 2000 Federal elections saw this division repeat itself and, ultimately, led to the events under which the new Reform party, now called the Alliance, and the PC’s would join under Alliance leader Stephen Harper. Harper is the man who would go on to lead the right back into Government after more than a decade of Liberal power in 2006.

There are clear similarities to me in terms of the split on the right the Canadian’s experienced during this period and that which the UK is seeing now. Reform Canada picked up disaffected traditional Conservative voters, though these were very specifically located geographically in the west of the country. The PC’s struggled to cut through during this period and failed to recover from the 1992 election drubbing. However, even this party of the right that had experienced far more opposition than government historically could not be completely quashed. The ‘thin blue line’ of staunch PC voters refused to desert the party, and it was by no means inevitable that they had to join with Reform.

They also, largely, lacked quality leadership. Kim Campbel, who fought the disastrous 1992 election was ill-suited to leading a national party and almost certainly hastened the collapse in support. Meanwhile one of the last PC leaders was Joe Clark, who had failed at leading the party in the 80’s and likely didn’t demonstrate a party with fresh ideas by turning to a leader from two decades prior. Indeed this is where the admirable Stephen Harper stood out, the man who would eventually lead the right back into power. At heart a true Conservative, a deep thinker and man of principle he alone shows the importance of strong, principled and very clear leadership.

There are clearly reasons why you can compare the two situations however my own view is that there are fundamental differences in the situations. Many of the big issues in Canada differ from our own, the issue of free trade, particularly with the United States, how provinces with very specific identities are treated by the federal government as well as things like gun laws don’t apply here. Indeed geographic differences loom large and are crucial to gaining a majority in Canadian elections. What’s more, the Canadian Conservatives had nothing like the history their British counterparts do, and the Canadian right has been split far more often than it has been divided.

I would though recommend this book to anyone who is thinking about how the next few years of the British right might play out. It is a reminder that events and personalities often dictate what happens – making predictions a fools game.

The eighth edition of the Bristol Radical History Festival is just a month away. The event takes place over two days: at the M Shed on Saturday 25 April, before it moves on to The Cube Microplex on Sunday 26 April.

The two days will encompass talks, panel discussions, films, history walks, an exhibition and more.
One of the four themes of this year’s event is Propaganda. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon. From the Bayeux Tapestry to social media, one could argue that only the technology has changed to mould and shape public opinion.

The Saturday at the festival will see Steve Poole from Bristol UWE tell us how state propaganda played a crucial role in staving off the threat of revolution in Britain in the 1790s. Meanwhile Riley Linebaugh will bring things forward into the 20th Century and focus on the ways the UK government covered its back when the colonial administrations in East Africa systematically destroyed and removed documents from colonies in the run up to independence.

Dr Lucy Goodison and Colin Thomas will visit more recent history. Specifically, the 1970s when successive governments tried to stymie BBC criticism of policy, especially in relation to Ireland. Both Goodison and Thomas worked for the corporation at the time and give us the lowdown on what happened and how BBC journalists fought back.

And Nicholas Jones (a former BBC correspondent) and ex Head of Channel 4 News Dorothy Byrne will talk about propaganda in the media in today’s news and the increasing presence of journalistic self-censorship.

From history to the present day

Finally, Ghada Dimashk and Barney Cullum will bring us right up to date. They’ll look at how, in the recent Gaza conflict, citizens became the primary producers of historic record, though via social media that is ultimately controlled by US tech giants, and how ordinary Palestinian archivists have managed to preserve endangered digital records.

All of these events take place on the first day of the festival, Saturday 25 April, at the M Shed.
The Bristol Radical History Festival, like all Bristol Radical History Group events, is free and is organised by local people from Bristol. It doesn’t have funding from universities, political parties, business or local government.

To break even we rely on our members giving their labour for free and sales from our publications.
And most importantly: whether you are an academic or curious first timer, a lifelong Bristolian or just down for the day, all are welcome.

For more information and the full programme of the Radical History Festival go to the website at brh.org.uk

Featured image via the Canary

A reviews hub built on process, not promotion

Evidence you can verify

Real player feedback informs the model

Responsible gambling beyond a checkbox

Global scale, UK focus

The bottom line for UK casino players

The government is ordering its MPs to vote against changes that would enable victims to access court transcripts for free. (Alamy)

2 min read1 hr

Three clauses were added to the legislation by the House of Lords, including “a clause that would enable victims to have access to free transcripts of court proceedings”. MPs are set to vote on them on Wednesday afternoon.

Costs for victims requesting transcripts of trials, including those who are victims of rape or sexual assault, can run into the tens of thousands, which critics say leaves many unable to pay the fees and therefore unable to access transcripts of trials in which they are the victim. 

Last year, the government accepted an Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) recommendation to make permanent a pilot allowing victims of rape and sexual offences to apply for a transcript of the sentencing remarks free of charge, when the defendant has been found guilty.

PoliticsHome understands that while the government remains fully committed to implementing the ISR recommendation, it considers amendments tabled by peers to go far beyond that commitment.

In the letter to Labour MPs ahead of votes on Wednesday, seen by PoliticsHome, minister Alex Davies-Jones cites government concerns around preparedness and the affordability of what the amendment seeks to introduce, as well as warnings that it could affect reporting restrictions on trials.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson told PoliticsHome: “No victim should ever be in the dark about decisions reached in their case. 

“That’s why the government is working hard to improve victims’ access to information, and we remain committed to providing all victims with free Crown Court sentencing remarks on request by Spring 2027. 

“We will carefully consider the implications of these amendments and set out next steps in due course.” 

However, PoliticsHome understands that the instruction to oppose the amendments caused upset among some Labour MPs, with some having meetings with the MoJ to discuss the government’s position.

The push to make transcripts free was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate on Monday, after a petition seeking to “make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge” reached over 200,000 signatures. 

Last year, now Victim’s Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman, told the BBC that victims being unable to access transcripts acted as a “real block to recovery”, and that victims had told her transcripts “should come as a part of them being able to see justice being done”.

“It’s really difficult for them to understand why there was an acquittal, especially if they haven’t come back into the court process, which many of them won’t have done,” said Waxman.