Parents need to open thier eyes

Once they are at high school its completely impossible to prevent them having access to the internet.

At the time there was a BBC public information unit that made short advert like films to educate the public. We had ones about safe use of electricity. Safe use of chip fans and what to do if there was a fire. The ones about children being safe were not made because parenting was judged to be poor. They looked at what were the main dangers to children and addressed those. So there were ones about children and farm machinery, because children raised on working farms have always been at greater risk of injury from farm machinery.
If the unit still existed today it would be making films about children's use of internet, lack of physical exercise, and how to have a healthy diet.

phoenixrosehere there wasn't even a slap on the wrist. At one point they wanted to charge her

It absolutely needs legislation and needs smart phones/ipads and any online chat in any capacity made illegal under 16.

I read that article earlier and thought exactly the same thing. It sounds like the girl was potentially vulnerable too. Children are not old enough and rational enough to navigate the world of smart phones at 11! The sooner legislation comes into place the better.

I do agree that the sickos are to blame as well as a society that places more blame on the victim than the perpetrators and gives them a slap on the wrist when they break the law.

Unless parents step up there is nothing you can do from a legislative or public service level. Parents need to refuse access, use firewalls and parental controls, remove phones at night, check the whereabouts of their children as they get older and so on. If a problem still arises then there should be back up from statutory services but that's in extreme cases, mostly problems can cease to exist by the word NO!

People don't want to parent anymore, they want to be friends with their children. 13/14 is as young as connected smartphones are appropriate and only with controls plus adequate safety grounding. If no kids had them then the issue just wouldn't exist in preteens. Schools need to start the process by saying only brick phones with cameras disabled are allowed on school premises switched off from arrival until leaving, in emergency parents can call the school office which worked before phones!

Cinocino- packages to in post lockers, post offices containing new devices that are then hidden in the home and brought out at night when the house is asleep.

We removed everything. They sent more.

The whole scenario is confusing.

The girl was 11 and sent a picture of herself in her bra to a boy at school. He sent it around the class and it escalated from there. Men and boys were demanding more pictures and became threatening and abusive so the mother called the police. She sent another picture.

Then the girl started to meet these men and was sexually assaulted. This happened frequently.

At no point did her mum take away her phone or put safeguards in place.

I also think social media providers should do more to regulate this activity to protect children online. Yes, we can say it’s the parents responsibility around access to a smart phone etc but tech companies need to do more and shouldn’t be let off the hook. why does Snapchat have age filters so that an adult can de age themselves and create a profile that’s ripe for grooming children? The age profiles for both Instagram and Snapchat are 13 do you think they’re safe for 13 year olds to use or could the tech companies do more to protect them? I follow scrolling to death on Instagram and the stories of children on that account are not dissimilar to the one linked by the OP. Not all parents will have the conversation or monitor phone usage so I think tech companies should be held to account and do more to protect children online.

I agree with this!

I can’t wait the video atm, but if the parents knew she had inappropriate contact with an adult why did she still have access to the internet for it to escalate for months after this point?
Genuine question, is that addressed?

Absolutely.

Its so easy for people to sit back, be judgemental and believe their own parenting is perfect and it could never happen to their own cotton wool protected children.

Every child is at risk. We need to teach them how to navigate the world, how to seek help, and how to feel safe about asking for help. Just switching of the internet wont cut it.

Sorry to hear about your SD

Ok I watched the film.

The parents did check the phone.

They reported it to the police who failed to act.

They asked social work for help who took months to become involved and by that point the child had been groomed and behaviour had spiralled. Social work continued to fail the child for another 2 years.

Its not as simple to just blame parents. Police and social work have failed here.

Children should be allowed access to the internet in their own homes but as a parent they have a responsibility to safeguard their child.

What Foxblue said.

You can’t protect them from everything and they may find a way around restrictions that you don’t spot, but you can substantially reduce the risk. All it takes is a few hours googling and working through how to set up their phone safely when they first get one, by following clear instructions (eg Apple has step by step screenshots on how to secure an iPhone).

I know some parents have neither the time nor the knowledge to do this type of thing - but I suspect it’s a minority and that many people just hope for the best and assume bad things won’t happen to their DC.

I’ve noticed that people with direct experience of safeguarding are usually very on it - maybe we need some public information campaigns that show the risks and real life (anonymised) cases where things have gone badly wrong for the child.

How would this be legislated for, though? Seatbelts and smoking were monitored outside the home - kids not being able to purchase cigarettes from vendors, people being pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. There wasn't legislation to prevent adults from smoking in the home with kids, or kids smoking in the home.

I don't see how you could legislate to prevent kids from having access to the internet in their own homes. They actually need the internet for various and entirely appropriate things, as do we all.

What's needed is for parents to make sure they're not endangering themselves, not politicians trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.

So long as whatever they come up with does not affect other people.

For example, When you get a new phone contract, it's always blocked for anything not suitable for children - even if it's on a contract. You have to be over 18 to take out a contract.

If it's a parent taking it out for a child, it should be on them to make sure there are child protections in place. I should not have to jump through hoops and prove I'm over 18 when I bloody well had to be to sign the contract.

Thanks for your reply.

It would work with the 'world wide web' if you prevent children from having access to it. No uncensored access to the internet would mean less access to harmful social media. But parents would need to do their job too.

This doesn't work with the WORLD wide Web.

If only you knew my sd story.
Her parents did absolutely everything to protect her online, even withholding a phone for several years. It took one random chat on a game deemed safe that she was taught to then hide by the first groomer.
Parents are not to blame. The sickos are

I don’t think this is the case, or at least there were just as many parents who didn’t want to parent 30/60/70 years ago. What’s it called when you open the back door for your young child to run off and play wherever they want and tell them not to come back until dinner other than not wanting to parent? Very commonplace in the previous generation of parenting.

The problem is children have so much more access to dangerous situations than ever before and too many parents are wilfully ignorant and naive to that.

I’m not familiar with that particular case, but a lot of the time it’s the parents that are the issue.

I’m a police officer and a large amount of my time is taken up with what boils down to ineffective parenting. Runaway kids, who have often made it from one end of the country to the other. They are at huge risk of grooming, criminal exploitation, sexual exploitation. The usual answer from parents is “well I can’t keep him from going where he wants”.

Or with children who have committed offences and need interviewing, “Little Jimmy says he’s not coming and I can’t make him”. I wouldn’t have been given the choice as a child!! My parents never raised a hand to me, never threatened violence and weren’t cruel. But they were firm; the idea that I could run amok or not engage with official processes would be unthinkable. This attitude is everywhere and it’s the teenagers that rule the roost in most homes I go into.

I don’t know what the solution is.

I think these kind of reports are often used as rage bait. It doesn’t mention what this mother has actually done, just that she’s been asking for help. People automatically assume that there’s been no discipline or phone restrictions and it’s all the mother’s fault- as usual.

I grew up in the 80s and have friends who were on the receiving end of CSA and grooming because they went out unsupervised and some of the parents didn’t even care. I don’t think parenting has got worse I think it’s just more widely reported.

Preventing online grooming and underage access to inappropriate content should be something taken on by politicians. Of course it’s not easy and requires constant attention, however, millions are spent on monitoring for fraud, money laundering and terrorism. Child safety just isn’t that cost effective.

Same can be said for random new partners

@Rainbowsponge @fitzwilliamdarcy @DavidBeckhamsrightfoot

I don't like a nanny state either but (unless you don't believe in democracy) we do need to believe or hope that society can change and that our politicians can legislate for social behaviours as well as criminal ones.

For instance, in 1970 people would have laughed at the idea of compulsory seatbelts being enforced. This didn't happen until the early 80s. These days, people consider it the norm, and not wearing one is frowned upon.

Likewise with smoking. Those of us who are old enough remember that smoking was everywhere - bus, cinema, planes, workplaces. A change in social attitutes and a change in the law were both required.

I could go on. The point I am making is that social change can happen spontaneously, but often it needs the law to intervene. As a child of the 1960s it was the norm for kids to be smacked/caned, thankfully no longer.

I think it is true to say that - in part due to the pandemic - many now believe that the rules don't apply to them - including some politicians. The social contract needs renewal, and I'm sorry but some of this will require political action.

Sometimes the nanny state is necessary if parents cannot, well, parent.