To wholeheartedly agree with Brianna Ghey’s mother

[Moonpig82]

I spotted this article this morning. We personally do not allow Tik Tok, Insta, Facebook, Snapchat. For our eldest who has just got a phone when starting Year 7. However we have succumbed to whatsapp.

What are people’s thoughts? How can we ‘police’ our children’s phones?

Or AIBU and there is no policing for social media? I know my Year 7 child’s friends do have these apps. Not all of them though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68193103

The spiking was covered up. The new school didn't know about it. They were told she was caught once ,as a one off with edibles and that's what she was getting support for. Brianna was in there getting support for her anxiety.

@WotsitsQuavers not in internet cafes they weren't.

Well my kids have Access to all of these apps- they were told beforehand all of the dangers and what they were allowed to watch and what they should be telling me about if they so happen to see something in appropriate. There is something more going on here than just access to the internet, the internet doesn’t make you do this shit, there’s something extra that makes someone cross that line.

agree!

my own child had a brick phone. I refused to let them have access to social media.

every single time I told my child you are having the childhood I had and are going to enter adulthood without a plethora of embarrassing and/or potentially damaging photos and posts.

the cons

couldn’t socialise as easily with friends because they missed out on stuff online.

But with kids seeing each other every day this isn’t really a bad thing.

made homework and class work harder because teachers assumed all kids had a phone. iPads were available to loan on school so not the end of the world.

pros

my child is able to sit and have a conversation without reaching for a phone.
often leaves it at home or in their room. Basically isn’t permanently attached to it.

has multiple other interests

got to be a kid and stay into ‘kid’ stuff a little longer (which is healthy!) because they weren’t influenced by ads or peers online. With their photos of the overpriced stuff all the time. Eg still plays with Lego. Would dig out wooden train tracks they had at 4 at 12-14 for example. Nothing wrong with that and I didn’t question it because it was all positive imaginative play.

it didn’t stunt them socially because they have no problem making friends HOWEVER they do struggle with their peers obsession with selfies and scrolling rather than talking.

isn’t as fussed as peers by brand names and logos etc and has a very distinct sense of their own self and style.

did wonders for managing their adhd and prevented significant dopermining and doomscrolling.

the bullying they did have was confined to school. The bullies couldn’t enter our home through apps.

doesn’t have an self image issue.

was absolutely the right choice for us here. It is possible. It’s just harder work.

@SauronsArsehole every single one of the pros apply to my non brick phone DD. Except it was playdoh not train tracks.

Bar the bullying one, which if it wasn't on her phone I wouldn't have known about because she didn't "want to make a big deal" and was hoping they would be her friends again. So I was able to put a stop to it pretty quickly and support her and find solutions and alternatives for her.

There's always something dangerous around that kids can do though.

In my childhood it was flashers, porn mags left in woods, weirdos hanging around parks and play grounds, men trying to get you in their car or chat you up when you in your school uniform.
There were kids at school gluesniffing, shagging, getting pregnant, playing truant, setting up fights, drinking.

It's just changed disguise that's all.

We need to keep our kids one step ahead, savvy, wide awake and prepared to spot and mitigate anything that can harm them.

That's the only real way to protect them - by showing them how to protect themselves.

Hoping against hope that this company bring this here soon:

https://www.bark.us/bark-phone/

I agree that kids will always be at risk of SOMETHING but you wouldn’t invite that flasher into your home and into your kids bedroom would you? I think that’s the difference - the internet/having a smart phone invites the entire world into your house/bedroom. That can mean really great things educationally (the internet is such a fantastic resource for knowledge) but it can also mean every pervert and his dog has access to your child, in their own home. I think that’s important.

Why is no one talking about banning streaming platforms though? Or at least to kids under 18?

It shouldn’t be left to parents to police, just like any other age restricted product. It would be absolutely possible to put age restrictions in place which whilst not infallible would cut down a lot. Also have some sort of responsibility for the big tech faints to keep people safe. If every kid knows about TikTok latest challenge it’s laughable to say these companies can’t vastly reduce the inappropriate content. Unfortunately it’s often not possible to legislate away from the tiny minority who have severe psychological problems and deliberately want to cause harm. It is possible I improve things for the majority of kids. The parents who believe that their kids are not accessing any of this stuff because they’ve told them not to, they have a good relationship, their kids are good kids are naive imo as the algorithms and pop ups deliberately put harmful content on view

@Allthatwegotisthispalebluedot no, the equivalent would be to never allow your kid to walk anywhere (until 16/18) and expect everyone else to do the same.

Absolutely. Of course access to our children has found a new avenue.

However, the footage that Scarlett saw was on the Dark Web. The Dark Web is hard to access for anyone, let alone children and if given the knowledge they could access it wether or not they have tiktok/snapchat etc on their phone.

If Scarlett was interest in serial killers, she could turn on the tv at any time of day to watch, almost 24hrs a day, the stories and the details of pretty much any horrific killing in the world.

Without tiktok/insta it can still be arranged to meet with a friend, completely ignorant of what's in store. These were apparently her friends. They could arranged that over the landline.

I just don't think it would have prevented it happening even if all those young people had zero access to the internet.

The plans were made with pen and paper.

The intent was there. It was going to happen to someone as no-one spotted the psychological impulses in that Scarlett's mind.
How do you spot that??

People are very keen to emphasis her use of the dark web, but while she may have accessed this, it wont have formed all of what she was exposed to, you dont have to access this to engage in interactions with unsafe people, people talking about violence, weapons, sexual fantasy, porn, all the child like anime stuff.
Until its all published (and this might not even be part of whats published as the detail is important and I suspect the pernickity detail isnt really being looked at), when, where and how did she access it, what did she access on that part of it

And when 'dark web' is mentioned is it what we understand to be the sections which you have to have TOR for, or is it just shorthand for all the nasties we're talking about anyway?

And I think as well people are getting too hung up on the phrase 'social media', I see it as just shorthand personally, it means whatever ability someone has to engage with and talk to and talk about or be exposed to information that is put there by a n other. ie, not an NHS website or childline or government websites but any old thing that any old person can set up, forums and the such like too.

Maybe I'm just too inexperienced/naïve as I'm only in first trimester with my first currently, but I don't want my kids having smart anything's.
No tablets, no smart phones, none of it until they can pay for it themselves and understand the value.
There's no reason for children to have access to these things to be quite honest and kids these day are growing up far too fast, they don't even LOOK like kids anymore half the time because they're so influence by what they see and access online.
Kids in single digits should not be begging their parents for a trip to Sephora and then running amuck for god's sake, they should barely be interested in makeup at all.
A bitch basic phone suitable for calls and texts for safety sure, but that's it.

Why do children need to be able to have access to all these things that clearly we cannot "parental control" adequately to begin with? And that they can learn to find workarounds for anyway?
Fairly sure phones that are JUST phones are still sold, are they not? Why is this necessary?

I really just do not understand this obsession with plonking kids in front of tablets and smart phones etc.
I keep seeing "funny" videos (really not funny to me, sad a depressing more like) of parents in restaurants drawing/colouring in placemats and their kids swiping away on tablet and phones playing games or watching something, for god's sake, WHY?!!!
I just don't get it.

@SpicyMoth will wait for your update 15 years from now.

I keep seeing "funny" videos (really not funny to me, sad a depressing more like) of parents in restaurants drawing/colouring in placemats and their kids swiping away on tablet and phones playing games or watching something, for god's sake, WHY?!!!
I just don't get it.

I've never seen these. You should get off the internet and live a more wholesome life. Fancy spending your time watching videos of other people going to restaurants! WHY???

I get that, but that should be looked into. There was police involvement and a paper trail from the spiking. How/who could cover that up in an educational setting when she would be placed with vulnerable kids. Why cover it up.

It was the TOR stuff.

I don't see anyone asking for the ban for streaming platforms either despite her watching and rewatching quite gory horror movies on Netflix for hours on end.

Her actual plans and lists and fawning over serial killers were pen on paper.

Her drugging another kid was known to her old school and her parents.

People can blame SM all they want, but the truth is it was a possibly contributing factor , not the catalyst. Or the reason. Odds are it would've happened anyway, just to another kid ,in a different set of circumstances.

And how would they police that? No ipads? Laptops? All of it gone or just one device? It’s completely unrealistic and wouldn’t solve anything.

Because it was vile.

There's middle ground though. It's not toddlers watching ipads in pushchairs or no technology at all.

The problem is that when your son is eight and all of his friends are talking about and playing live action versions of whatever is popular then at playtime and your son is standing on the sidelines because he's not allowed to play computer games it all becomes a bit more difficult.

And when they are twelve and using Snapchat to talk to each other and your child can't join in so gets left out of stuff then you will feel sad for him.

You clearly use social media so it's going to be tricky to justify that to a teenager.

Im not sure anyone is saying it was the catalyst but as others have set out, content absorbed by her will have normalised what she felt, legitmised it, validated it, exicted her, gave her ideas about what to do etc etc

People dont make these arguments about how very violent dangerous porn doesnt affect men. We know that men and boys watching violent dangerous porn over and over again start to view or enhances their view of wanting that violence when with a woman. We understand thats the process and that it has a massive impact and is having an impact particularly on teen boys about what they think is normal sexual behaviour. In fact there is an issue with girls even thinking thats normal sexual behaviour and therefore they have to go along with it too because they are also exposed to this

Why are people so resistant to understanding why this violence she was absorbing (from a range of sources) was a contributory factor in what happened and her enablement?

My 13yo doesn’t have a smart phone, just a brick phone. She moans about it, but too bad. Kids in her class have got into a real pickle. It’s my job to do the right thing not just the popular thing.

I understand there are all sorts of restrictions on using Tiktok for kids in China - wouldn’t be such a terrible idea to do that more widely in my view…..

@ohdelay from what I understand, the parents of the victim didn't want to press charges.

Her old school wanted to permanently exclude her at first, but then agreed to a managed move instead. Apparently (I'm only quoting newspaper articles so I don't have actual first hand information) to give her a second chance.

The new school was told the reason was that Scarlett got caught once with edibles in school.

Pure speculation, but I wonder if her parents pushed for all this and the second chance. Mum seems to be a teacher. Professional courtesy? Disbelief a kid from a nice family would be that malicious? Compassion for her young age and the reluctance of the vicim's parents to press charges? I honestly don't know.

The head of Brianna's school has publicly said they didn't know, that they should have and she's asking for more cooperation and transparency between agencies.