Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
A
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. This message comes from Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth.
- [00:29]
B
Your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.
- [00:33]
C
If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merriman and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:09]
A
Was your flabbergasted at the Robert Jenrick Day?
- [01:13]
C
No, because if you'd said give me a list of the most likely conservatives to defect a reform, he would have probably been at the top of it. So no.
- [01:21]
A
What about Marple Badenok?
- [01:23]
C
Ah, well, I think she's developing more of a ruthless streak. I think she displayed that. I think she made the best of a terrible hand, which is somebody very prominent defecting. I also just want to share with Newscasters. Adam and I had a fruitless search for good nicknames for Detective Badenok. Newscasters, I'm glad to say, have helped us out and come up with by far the best one. Much better than Badenoch Holmes can.
- [01:47]
A
Oh well, that tells us that we're in the right job because we get all the content provided by the newscasters on we go with Saturday's newscast, newscast.
- [01:56]
C
Newscast from the BBC Fat Boy Slim.
- [01:59]
B
And me in the classroom doing our violin lessons. I was the tattletail in the classroom.
- [02:03]
A
Can I have an apology please? I trust almost nobody that daddy has.
- [02:06]
B
To sometimes use strong language. Next time in Moscow.
- [02:10]
C
I feel Delulu with no Salulu.
- [02:11]
B
Take me down the Downing Street. Let's go have a tour.
- [02:15]
A
Blimey, it's Paddy in the studio and.
- [02:19]
C
In a few minutes we're going to be joined by an excellent guest on a topic which Chemai5 made big headlines with last week. So when she came to do her leaders interview with us last Sunday, Cammy Vadenok made headlines by suggesting that the Conservatives would back and will argue for a ban on social media for under 16s. This is something that you and I have been talking about this whole field for a long, long, long time on this program. But all of a sudden, the idea of banning social media for under 16s has become incredibly politically fashionable. There's a vote coming up in the House of Lords this week, and for a long time the government has been very hesitant. They weren't in that place, they weren't talking about a blanket ban. Australia have gone ahead with it and the government have been saying for a while, well, we'll study what's happening in Australia very, very carefully. But it does seem that the political wind has changed on this from really quite strong resistance to really quite a. Quite a fair breeze behind it now.
- [03:15]
A
I wonder if it' fair to call it political crosswinds. The obvious example of that being people on different wings of politics have the same views. Banning things is not normally the Tory mantra. I know what we're going to do. We're going to ban things. But during your program last week, whilst interviewing the leader of the Opposition, the mayor of Greater Manchester of a Labour persuasion said, oh, I think she's got something. She's got something old Cammy Badenoch.
- [03:40]
C
That's right. And it's not a sort of ideological divide on this necessarily, although there are people who argue it from ideological points of view. But I think that the political appetite for it has moved, actually mirroring the level of public concern which has grown. And you and I have both interviewed over the years, families who have been absolutely devastated by the worst excesses of what can come online. And it's not surprising, therefore, that you get families and some campaigners making this case, I think, out of a sense, perhaps of frustration, of a sense of powerlessness, that what happens on the Internet is somehow, it's so big, it's bigger than any one government, it's certainly bigger than any one family. But what's really interesting, and what we're about to get into with one of those prominent voices on this, is that the idea of a blanket ban is seen by some people as just too stringent. It could even potentially be counterproductive. So there's going to be a lot of political conversation about this in the next few days.
- [04:39]
B
But.
- [04:40]
C
But this afternoon we thought, why not really get into this and try to understand all the different swirling interests that are competing here?
- [04:48]
A
Yes, because the blanket ban, it's argued, doesn't address the tactics, the algorithm, the deliberate rage, baiting. It could be analogous to as cars grew in the 20th century. It wasn't just the speed they were traveling, it's what kind of safety measures were required inside the car and outside the car. So if you just had a speed limit and said, ah, this will answer all road safety issues. It doesn't. So actually the people against the blanket ban include parents who've lost children to events surrounding social media.
- [05:21]
C
That's right. So shall we get on with our conversation then with one of them, Ian Russell, who people will recognize from the news we've spoken to in various different interviews over the years? Ian terribly, sadly lost his daughter Molly in 2017. She took her own life and the Inquest into what happened. Her death concluded that social media content, and I'm going to use the quote because it is the actual quote, but I also think it sounds terribly bold and terribly banal for something that happened that was so appalling. But the finding of the Inquest was that social media content contributed more than minimally to her death, but with incredible courage and resolve. Ian has become one of the foremost campaigners on this issue. He's been working on it for years and years, initially, I think, trying to get politicians to listen to at all, trying to get the tech companies to engage at all, but now has become one of the most foremost experts in this area. Ian, thank you so much for joining us. It's great to have you with us. I think a lot of people listening might think you've given so much to campaigning for kids to be safe online, so automatically you'd be in favor of stopping them being able to see social media.
- [06:39]
B
That might, that might appear to be the case, but I think that's the crux of this matter. I completely understand why the public where parents are calling for action, because there just hasn't been enough action to tackle the dangers that that can be found online, particularly by children that are presented by, often by the toxic algorithms that the social media platforms use and there just hasn't been enough done. So I completely understand that, completely support that and I'm calling for that. And I think the subtlety is that I passionately believe, having spent eight years listening to arguments, talking to experts, that there are better ways of doing it.
- [07:30]
A
Did you respect my effort to sum up what's been your life and it's analogous to how we've dealt with road safety over the years. It's the attitude of the driver. Is it drinking? Are they, do they need more experience? Could we say that the algorithm in particular needs to be addressed as much as a complete ban?
- [07:50]
B
I think I Think so. And the problem with a ban is you're not addressing the source of the problem, the source of the harm. The problem with the ban is that you're penalising children. You're preventing them from growing up in a digital world. Whether we like it or not, we exist in a digital world. We all have to grow up in a digital world and we have to learn to live in a digital world. A ban stops that happening and it takes the onus away from the platforms. Who, in my mind, are the culprits here? It takes the onus away from them doing something about the problems that they have caused.
- [08:30]
C
And we'll get onto the platforms in just a second. But in terms of a ban, and for parents, so many parents who feel powerless as they see their kids, and frankly, adults too, you know, struggling to put these things down, because we know that the longer that you spend on a device, it's a business, they're designed to be so compelling that you feel almost addicted to looking at them. If a ban stopped kids seeing harmful content, what's wrong with that?
- [08:59]
B
Well, there's an if there, Laura. If a ban stops kids seeing harmful content, and the honest truth is we don't know, but there's, there's lots of suspicions that it won't stop kids seeing harmful content. Already in Australia, the ban there is only a month underway. But we're all, we are all looking to Australia. You're absolutely right. We're looking there. And there's signs that the things that have been predicted, not just by me, but by a whole raft of experts and people who've been studying this for ages, the things that go wrong with bans are already going wrong in Australia. For example, in the last month, one in 10 calls to the Australian equivalent of Childline in connection with the removal of social media, media from young people, quite often young girls or people from the LGBTQ community, vulnerable young people who've lost the sort of sense of sharing, sense of community that they had had online. So that's increased calls to outlines. So that's, that's exactly having the opposite effect. And I think the E Safety commissioner, with some triumph, said that they had removed a fairly large number of accounts. Young people. That equates those accounts equate to two accounts per young person in Australia. Now, we all know that's to us, to the non digital natives, that might sound like, oh, that's quite successful. But if you, if you talk to young people whose voices are so often ignored in this debate, if you talk to young People you know, or you're a parent, you know that quite often a young person would have to Instagram accounts, let alone across the 10 platforms that Australia.
- [10:46]
C
But you also hear from young people, and some of the research shows this too, that some of them feel they don't really want to be on these platforms, but they feel that they have no choice. And if you take away that pressure, that might be helpful for them. And in terms of the Australian ban, just to give a bit more context of what it actually has got rid of and what it hasn't, so it's banned Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat threads, tick Tock X, YouTube, Reddit and Kick and Twitch, which are streaming platforms. But WhatsApp, Google Classroom and YouTube Kids are not covered. So it's not as if you're taking away the possibility of kids engaging online at all. Isn't it actually better to be what some people arguing for? Just say better to be safe than sorry?
- [11:28]
B
I don't think this is being safe. I think there are better ways of being safe.
- [11:32]
A
It's being safer though.
- [11:34]
B
I don't think it is being safer.
- [11:35]
A
Because I wonder if you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because what we could do is take, take comfort from watching what happens in Australia. So introduce concerns the British government listen to you and you've written a letter which we'll come to in a minute and then we learn our own system because we can look at what went right and wrong in Australia.
- [11:53]
B
I tell you what's important is that we always listen to the evidence and there isn't enough evidence surrounding bans. So it is important we watch what happens in Australia and learn. But we are learning already that it seems to be having the predicted unintended consequences which are dangerous. So what is also important that we listen to the evidence of the experts, not the me. I'm a bereaved parent. I've been looking into this for eight years. But what I've learned and what has guided me since Molly died eight years ago and what has driven me to say what I say and believe, what I believe is there should be no more deaths like Molly's. Ideally. And what has driven me is the opinion of experts, not quick fix solutions. So we should be watching what happens in Australia, but we should be listening to the existing opinions of the experts in this country, particularly who know this stuff and have better solutions that would drive us to safety and protect our children much more quickly than the introduction of a bam.
- [12:52]
C
So when you look at this joint statement that you're publishing, I think, just about as we speak, from some children and online safety campaigners, charities and bereaved parents like you. Mariano Janinos is another bereaved parent we talked to over the last few years as a signatory as well. The arguments in there, you say a blanket ban could drive all sorts of unintended consequences, but how do you sum up the argument that you and those other groups have making?
- [13:23]
B
It's quite simple that in the UK we have an advantage. The contacts I have around the world, who. This is a global problem. There's so many people interested in this. Those contacts, they all look across the Atlantic if they're from America or they look from wherever they are and they are envious because in this country we have the Online Safety act, we have a tranche of regulation which many countries don't have, and they look to us with envious eyes going, that is the way forward. We should be pushing that because we're there already. We should be building on the Online Safety act, the foundations that have been laid. We should be building on that act and we should be exploring ways that we can strengthen that act and exploring ways that we can make its implementation more effective.
- [14:09]
A
Could we compare it to anything you have in your letter compared it to some aspects of film classifications so we can all understand what film classifications are? I was earlier mentioning road safety. Can you compare the sort of changes you would like to see to other bits of legislation that protect young people?
- [14:27]
B
Yeah, I think there's a measure of comparison that you could make to film classification. One of the things that I find perplexing is the conversation that was started last week by Kemi Bedenok's announcement is happening now. It's happening at the time when there has been a significant movement. There has been strong words from government, from Keir Starmer. The first time in ages Kier has said something really strong and said that he would back denial of service of X. So X as a platform may no longer be available in this country if it didn't do something about the awful nudification apps that its AI was doing. Those strong words, coupled with the strong words from Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State, have made a difference. And it seems that X has made a U turn. It proves that strong words and leadership make a difference that has been absent. I saw a met here face to face almost exactly a year ago and we talked as much as parent to parent, as Prime Minister to person. And he. I absolutely believe, like so many parents, like all parents, he's concerned he has teenage children, he's concerned about this. And yet the current government haven't demonstrated leadership. They've sat on this. They have, for example, commissioned research by academics. Dr. Amy Auburn's research was commissioned by the previous, previous Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, that is sitting there. She delivered that research early last year.
- [16:08]
C
She says early last year.
- [16:09]
B
Early last year. That's what she said this morning. And that sitting there and they have chosen not to publish that research.
- [16:15]
C
Why do you think they've chosen not to publish it?
- [16:17]
B
I can only guess for that research is the sort of thing that we should be listening to because these are the people, the academics, the people who understand, who dig deep and they understand it. And yet we have other members of the current government who are saying that they will turn to other people who write books and equally passionate about making the world safer. But, but their evidence is based on what happens in America. Their evidence and their, and their beliefs, I've heard, you know, them say, is based on the fact that Congress won't do anything. And there's the point. Congress might not be doing anything. We already in this country have a huge head start because we have the Online Safety Act.
- [17:02]
C
But I know you think also the act as it's being applied right now is insufficient and you've had tough words for Ofcom basically not being up to scratch on this. And we'll come to that in a second and sort of political fashion, I suppose. But I just want to remind people that here Starmer said this week all options are on the table. Whether that's under 16s on social media or an issue. I'm very concerned about under fives and screen time. But it does feel very much that the political winds are changing. You even had the Health Secretary Wes, stressing basically saying, well, I think there should be a social media ban for under 16s and if people are listening to rather than watching this. Ian, there was a little hint of an eye roll there when I mention that. Do you think politicians are just jumping on a bandwagon now?
- [17:49]
B
They may be, I don't know. But if any politician uses this for political gain, then that's quite frankly disgraceful. This matter transcends the sort of cross party politics. You know, when the bill was going through Parliament, there was consensus across the floor of the House. It went through because we need to do something. If someone is using it for political advantage, I would find that disturbing. The parents, the other bereaved parents that I know are also horrified. And many of them have said things like this is not something that should be a party political issue. This is not something that should win votes. This is something that all parties should unite behind. This is, you know, should be evidence based and parties should get together to do what's best for the safety of our children. That's what's really important.
- [18:39]
A
Ian, I wonder if it goes like this, your argument, and it's a letter being released now, signed by at least 40 people, 40 organizations, that a blanket ban gives these companies cover. Because what you're trying to do is make the companies look at their behavior, their algorithms, and it's almost like we talk about protecting children, but you're using the argument about children to protect us. Because if I'm reading you correctly, it's the behaviour directed at people of all ages, including children, that you want to attack.
- [19:11]
B
I think if a ban were to go ahead now, one of the unintended consequences would be to put the Online Safety act in neutral. It's taken too long, there's no question about that. Ofcom have been too timid. They need to change the way in which they work as a regulator. They're responsible for implementing the act. That has to be different. But now just beginning to work. So we find ourselves in a situation where we have an online safety app that is just beginning to make a difference. We find ourselves in a situation where we have political voices that have been strong enough to make a difference, and yet we may be looking in a different direction and trying to go back to an unproven experiment that Australia is using when we should be pushing forward with something that is built on evidence and far more likely to deliver safety for our children.
- [20:04]
C
I just wonder. Newscasters are a smart bunch. Many of them will remember that it was Kemi Badenoch as a government minister, who acted to remove a more stringent setup in the Online Safety act when it was going through Parliament. Now, we don't need to rehearse the arguments around that. It was about the notion of legal but harmful, but it ended up not being in law because she wanted to protect freedom of speech. How does it seem to you that she's now using the arguments about safety?
- [20:35]
B
It's very hard to see it anything other than political opportunism. The politics these days is increasingly about popularity. So if you can back a measure that seems to have an impact in terms of popularity, that's sort of what will happen. And if you look at the other people who, as Paddy said, the mayor of Greater Manchester and West Streeting who have come out in favor of. They have some political maneuvering to do at the moment, if that's what they're doing, it's disgraceful and it shouldn't be for those reasons. What people should do is think about this, think deeply about this and listen to the body of evidence that is there from the experts. Publish the reports that the government themselves have commissioned so that we can hear the latest up to date information and make proper judgments on this.
- [21:26]
A
One of the things I find really amazing is that your letter talks about the benefits of social media connection and given what's happened in your family, it makes it such a powerful paragraph to read. You talked about connections, positive influences on minority communities who find connections and grow their sense of identity. And to speak in terms of the positive aspects of social media makes you a very, very different sort of opponent for the social media companies. Your argument really is taking me into the living room of a family trying to work out what to do with best. They want their children to benefit from technology and they want to know how. So what can we say to parents listening, who've heard us talk about the politics and the U turns and the policies in Australia? What should a newscaster who's got a 13 year old child do practically, whilst everyone else argues?
- [22:19]
B
So the most important thing you can do is discuss your social media habits amongst your family so, you know, find out what your children are doing and share your problems and issues with social media with, with your children, talk about it openly, it changes fast and I think there's a real way to communicate as a parent because you can ask advice of young people, young people know better and quicker how to navigate our digital world and they're actually quite, quite savvy because the other side of the coin, regulation by itself wouldn't be enough. We need education and that can sound quite daunting and time consuming, but it actually is, I think the first steps and they're the biggest steps are much easier to take than you think. If I go into a school and talk to children, you can talk to a 11 year old or 13 year old and you can explain about some of the tricks that social media do.
- [23:12]
A
You basically name one.
- [23:14]
B
Social media only makes money when you're on the platform. So social media. So psychologists many years ago said that little dot that says you've got a notification, you should look in that, in that app for something is red because it's very, very slightly harder for us to ignore something that's red because we want to sort of scratch it in a way than if it had been green. So that makes you push that button. Then when you're in there, there's another one. Infinite scroll, the inventor of Infinite scroll says he wishes he'd never invented it. You know.
- [23:40]
C
Yeah, that's right. He said it's only one line of code. And the companies could change that, could change that.
- [23:44]
A
This is interesting because in a family, I'm sharing it as a parent, I'm sharing it with the child, saying, do you know, today I did four and a half hours on, on Insta.
- [23:52]
B
Yeah. So, so use each other to monitor each other's behavior. And then once you, once you know that, that you're, you're being enticed into a platform, a product, and then you're being told to stay there. Just bear that in mind. And the young people get this instantly. I use a phrase that says, I don't know where it came from, but I use a phrase that says, just be aware of when you're being mugged off by the companies and they just, their eyes light up.
- [24:20]
A
I want to take, I want that in my life.
- [24:23]
B
Their eyes light up and they go, oh. And then there have been occasions when, when young people have come in voluntarily because I, I never tell them to do anything and they come in and say, I've deleted TikTok, I've deleted Instagram or something. That sort of first step education is not difficult to do. You can do that in, in the school place, you can do that at home. But just being aware of those techniques is, is so valuable and in.
- [24:51]
C
That's, I'm sure, very helpful for lots of people listening. But what would be the one thing that you would want the tech companies to do? You said they are the culprits here. That's one of the reasons you don't want to ban, to sort of let them off in a way. What would the one big thing you wouldn't let tech companies to do be.
- [25:08]
B
The tech companies. I'm not sure they're capable of doing it. And that's why the regulation is important. We have to change their corporate culture. Their business model is put first. Their business model is to engage you. Their algorithms that we talk about are based on your engagement. So they find ways to engage you, they entice you onto the platform and they don't care about the repercussions. That was quite apparent from Molly's inquest.
- [25:37]
C
Yeah, I know how hard you had to fight to get any engagement from.
- [25:39]
B
Any engagement, any evidence. You know, five years down the line. We eventually had an inquest and in a way we were lucky to get that evidence. There were so many families who don't find themselves in that position. And that, that pointed to the conclusion that you mentioned that social media played a part in Molly's death. And it's really important that we change that corporate culture and we don't allow it. And if you want to talk about bans, well, then we should ban individual platforms that are too dangerous. There's nothing wrong with that. But the blunt blanket ban is the wrong instrument to use. We should incentivize platforms to be safer. Because if you, if you'd banned one platform because it was unsafe and there was another one who was behaving better, and maybe you said that 16 was fine for that platform as an age limit, and there was one that was even better than that, and you said 13 was fine. That then incentivizes the platforms to head towards safety and to make the digital world safe for someone who's 13.
- [26:37]
C
And are there any platforms right now that you would want to see banned?
- [26:42]
B
I think it's difficult to see that X as a platform is behaving with the sort of corporate social responsibility such a global force should have. It's. It's not just a source of the sort of harms that led to Molly's death. It's a source of considerable misinformation that is disrupting the political world and damaging democracies around the world.
- [27:09]
A
Does that go further to people who use it?
- [27:11]
C
It?
- [27:11]
A
So if we have public opinion, big people in public conversation who use X, would you, in your, with your extraordinary role in this conversation, encourage them to come off it, as some labor mps.
- [27:21]
B
Have I at the moment? No, because I think you then distort the platform even, even more horribly. You know, any. Any voice that's balancing the extremes on X is no longer there. And it becomes, it becomes, it becomes more extreme. But I think if Elon Musk chooses not to run his platform in a safe way, the time will come and it should come soon, if he doesn't change quickly, that we should consider denial of service. And that's what Keir Starmer, that's what Liz Kendall said last week. And these things are important, and those strong statements make a difference. That's the sort of behavior that will drive safety. If Keir were to come. We spent a year after our conversation doing very little. The government have sat on that report. But if Kier were to come out and say in 10 Downing street on Monday morning, we're going to do this. We're going to push the buttons that we need to push to make the Online Safety act effective. It would happen just as quickly, if not quicker, than any blanket ban. It wouldn't have the unintended consequences of a ban and it would deliver safety, the safety that we need.
- [28:31]
C
And you said to us not so long ago you feared the government was actually going backwards on online safety. And that was, you know, a very strong criticism of them. The bill had gone in, you know, the Online Safety act had become law. But you said you felt the UK was going backwards in this area. Do you still feel that?
- [28:49]
B
We certainly have moved forwards and given that we've given social media two decades head start and that we're running to catch up, and tech companies are renowned for moving fast to and breaking things. We need to run as fast as we can. We've got AI coming down the road and we know the problems that the AI chatbots have produced. We've got other things in the future, maybe quantum computing, whatever it may be. We know that this isn't going to stop happening. So we have to be running fast to prevent new technology being unsafe. We need safety by design. That's something we've been calling for, for years. The platform should have safety embedded from the moment they consider designing their products. And if Kia were to come out and spell that out and also say, beyond safety by design, we need well being by design, because you could use tech for good, you could use algorithms to point young, vulnerable people who are struggling to sources of trusted sources of support. The platforms could do this now and they're not so well being. And safety by design are just there, they're just within reach. And where we're going back and we're having conversations about bans that were had during the passage of the act, we're going back to a place where instead of just about achieving the things that we've been so long working for, we could be putting that all on ice and waiting to see what happens and it would be too late to pick it all up again.
- [30:21]
C
And it's interesting, the political conversation on this doesn't divide neatly down party lines. I think there's a bit of a generational divide in the Labour Party on this.
- [30:29]
A
Interesting one as well.
- [30:30]
B
Yeah.
- [30:30]
C
And younger Labour MPs are often more up for this this than older ones. The Lib Dems have got the more nuanced position, like you and some of the NSBCC and other groups who've signed the letter. I just wonder if you are communicating to politicians and the Lords and then maybe later in the comments who might be voting on this week. Some of them even are newscasters. We know that. How? As simply as you can. How would you put your case to them in a couple of sentences against a ban.
- [30:55]
B
The most important thing you should do when considering the steps that are rightly called for to make the online world safer. The public are crying for this, crying out for this. The most important thing you should do is to listen to the evidence. It doesn't take that long. That's what I've learned in eight years. It doesn't take that long to get a better understanding, listen to that evidence and consider what is the best step that will most quickly get you towards safety. The steps that all those people who signed that letter, the NSPCC, the Internet Watch foundation, there's a whole host of 42 signatories on that letter. It's not me. I'm one of many, many people. These are experts. Most of the people on that letter have been working in this for far longer than the eight years since Molly died, in my case. And there are academics, there are people. Listen to the evidence that, that they are putting forward and then make your decision. Because the best way forward is to build on the foundations of that Online Safety act and to act quickly to make sure that it's implemented as Parliament intended. Then we'd have the safety that we all want. And at the heart of it, the heart of it is the companies who put profit before safety. And that has got to change. And I don't think we're that far away from it changing, which is why it's slightly exasperating that we're going through these same arguments again now about bans. It's not far away. We can build on what we've got. Far better than simply implementing sledgehammer techniques like bans that will have unintended consequences and cause more problems.
- [32:45]
C
Ian, it's been great to have you with us, and I think lots of families around the country are grateful to you for all the campaigning that you've done. I know the last time, one of the last times that we spoke to you said you were going to take a bit of a step back, but here you are, still fighting, fighting the cause.
- [33:00]
B
Well, thank you. Thank you. I think the last thing I just would like to say is it's absolutely right that parents are calling for something to happen. It's absolutely right because it needs to happen. We need to protect people better. And the politicians should listen to those calls, but they should also listen to the experts that we've got in this country, the experts who sign that letter and then they should base their judgment on what is best in terms of safety for young people. Heed the calls and listen to the experts. That's what's important.
- [33:37]
C
Ian, thank you so much. It will be really interesting to see what happens in Parliament this week. There are a lot of manoeuvrings behind the scenes on this issue. Suddenly it seems to taken life politically after, I have to say, quite a few years when we were discussing this a lot. But politicians weren't necessarily putting it anywhere near at the top of their list.
- [33:55]
A
Ian, thank you very much indeed.
- [33:57]
B
Thank you.
- [34:04]
A
What do you make you make of the conversation? You've met Ian so many times.
- [34:08]
C
I just think it's fascinating to hear someone argue in a really nuanced way in a world that is often presented as very, very black and white. And I think he's got a lot of food for thought for the who will be voting on this and discussing it in the next couple of weeks in Parliament. There are really strong views on this issue. And newscasters, please do let us know what you think and if any of these issues are worrying you, there is lots of help available on the BBC Action Line, which is always at www.BBC.co.uk action line.
- [34:36]
A
But am I not right that another bereaved mother says she she can get behind a ban?
- [34:42]
C
Yes.
- [34:43]
A
So we really are in a very difficult world to navigate.
- [34:46]
C
It is very difficult because I think there isn't a clear view and this is why it's hard for government. But I have to say I was very struck by what Ian said about the political debate. He said that bereaved parents are horrified by how this is being politicized. And he said it would be disgraceful if people are doing this for political opportunism. Now, of course we're treating and Kemi bad. We both deny that they're doing this for political opportunism. But it is an interesting and I think a significant development. And this is a debate for a long time when campaigners thought politicians were ignoring them. Them politicians are no longer ignoring them. But there is also clearly a concern that they are being somehow manipulated or taken advantage of. So Ian saying bereaved families are horrified by how this has become politicized I think is quite significant.
- [35:33]
A
Worst treating statement is no one would dispute when I was growing up that being able to use tools like hammers or a saw was a good skill set for us to learn as young people. What would never happen was a nursery or primary school Child being given a box of nails. Then there's been from every time an issue comes up, the social media firms say they are taking banning decisions and they're working with law enforcement.
- [35:55]
C
They do. And Meta Tick, Tock and X have all said, you know, they've got the safeguards, their safety teams are working around the clock. They take these things seriously. The regulator Ofcom, who's often accused of not taking this seriously enough or not being aggressive enough in enforcement, has said that they will step up efforts to push the social media companies on things if they're not willing to do so themselves. So lots and lots of action on this debate that we've talked a lot in the last few years about on newscast and on the TV and on the radio, but has really become a political debate that is very vigorous, very prescient and happening right now.
- [36:33]
A
Okay, so this is the end, I.
- [36:36]
C
Feel this is the end of Saturday's newscast. What are you doing on broadcasting host tomorrow?
- [36:40]
A
So we are going to speak to Lord Clark, Ken Clark, about the seismic moment on the right.
- [36:46]
C
Ah, fight on the right. My phrase of the week. Yes, we'll be talking to Nigel Farage.
- [36:50]
A
About the what does he know about the right?
- [36:52]
C
What does he know about the fight on the right? Well, Robert Jenrick said this was unite the Right, but might they just end up with a big bun fight on the right instead? So we're talking to Nigel Farage, the Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandi will be with us too. I suspect we might talk about the social media ban or to ban or not to ban. And what else? Oh, we've got an interview with Speaker Mike Johnson, who is the third most powerful politician from the United States. So that's very exciting.
- [37:16]
A
That's his perfect timing.
- [37:18]
C
Yeah, very exciting.
- [37:19]
A
We're going to ask are the too many dogs in pubs? And also, yes, we're going to ask.
- [37:23]
C
The question, am I allowed to break these impartialities?
- [37:26]
A
No, you're not.
- [37:26]
C
And say there can never be too many dogs anywhere.
- [37:31]
A
Well, one of our guests, Tim Martin, founder of Wetherspoons, he'd have a ding dong with you. He banned them from spoons. I mean, they can have a spoon, but they can't go into Wetherspoons. Well, maybe they do give a dog a bone. Give a dog a spoon. And we're gonna see should there be more civility in public life?
- [37:46]
C
You see, people are more civil when their dog's around. You're going to be argument for dogs. Is Bob. Am I allowed to talk about Bob?
- [37:53]
A
Bob is My dog. You must talk about him.
- [37:56]
C
Is Bob gonna be on Broadcasting House during the debate about dogs in pubs?
- [37:59]
A
He'll be in my mind because I.
- [38:01]
C
Know Bob loves a pub. I've seen Bob in the pub.
- [38:04]
A
Bob has been in a pub. Actually, he knows his way around them very well.
- [38:08]
C
I'm sure he does. Henry will be here tomorrow in person. I'm not here tomorrow because I have to go and do something else after the program on the tele box. But I'll be back with you on Saturday. And I did. I did News Festival. What day was.
- [38:20]
A
It was Thursday.
- [38:21]
C
Thursday, yeah.
- [38:23]
A
You did?
- [38:23]
C
Yeah. And there's. Anyway, there's far too, far too much of me on the cast this week anyway. So, yes, I won't be here tomorrow to the audience is great relief.
- [38:29]
A
No, no. Goodbye.
- [38:31]
C
Goodbye.
- [38:31]
A
Newscast.
- [38:32]
C
Newscast from the BBC.
- [38:34]
B
Thank you so much for making it to the end of Newscast. You clearly copyright Chris Mason. Ooh, stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Don't forget, you can email us anytime. It's newscastbc.co.uk and if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast. And don't be scared. It's super easy to click on it and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 03309480 and I promise you we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Bye.